Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by Sanity Check, Mar 9, 2011.
If it cured cancer people wouldn't have cancer.
I wish it did though, I'd be rich with my stock.
If anti-depressants cured depression, ppl wouldn't have depression.
C wut I did thar?
The only real anti-depressant is sex.
Hard to believe but whatever takes to legalize it, I approve.
They should find out how many people die of cancer yearly in Netherlands.
I just recently read an article about how it can increase psychosis
Personally I understand it's medicinal qualities in a strict and controlled manner if it has to do with a serious illness and that would help.
Otherwise it's just an excuse to get high.
Manufacturers of chemotherapy products realize a marijuana based cancer treatment is a threat to their billion dollar industry.
They pay someone willing to whore out their academic credibility dollars and cents to release a "study" saying marijuana use results in a 0.00001% higher chance of developing psychosis.
Surprising though it may seem when there are billions of dollars on the line people make up BS and lie. Business mirrors politics all too well.
Your source is just as biased if not more so, and they also have an obvious agenda.
X Really? Are you kidding me?
Tons of studies and research data concluding cannabis has anti-tumor properties (and therefore anti-cancer properties) dating back to the 1970's...
X (study back in 2004)
X (Harvard study back in 2007)
What's different about the source I posted, is its the first time someone has tried to market it as a legitimate treatment backed by legitimate medical research, etc.
Whether the FDA approves it or shoots it down will be huge.
Correlation=/Causation=/Cure=/NO it ain't a miracle drug.
There is no treatment reference to causation nor correlation in regard to curing uncurable diseases.
You don't get rid of AIDs or herpes by accident.
That doesn't change anything.
If you're going to criticize one side for promoting studies that favor their agendas but spare these guys even though they're doing the same exact thing that makes you a hypocrite.
You are aware cancer can go into spontaneous remission right? So even if its true that these people started recovering from cancer that doesn't necessarily mean that breathing in bits of burning leaves and paper cured them.
I'm not criticizing anyone for promoting studies. I'm criticizing them for fabricating false studies.
Medical studies conducted from the 1960's onwards say otherwise.
I wonder what combination of drugs doesn't increase some future health risk. I wonder for that matter what of anything doesn't increase some health risk.
My point? Who the fuck cares? Let people get high if they want. The bullshit excuses to keep things illegal ultimately do far more societal harm than good.
And who are you to dismiss studies as being "fabricated"?
one should always wonder with such breaking new studies
"has this scientific study been peer reviewed?"
"Are these findings published in an academic journal?"
if not be weary IMO
Doesn't smoking Marijuana cause cancer?
Do you mean when someone get treated all the cancer cells are destroyed but there is a chance it will return? Or do you mean they randomly come and go? Is there a reason for that.
The study linking Cannabis with psychosis was published in the British Medical Journal and involved researchers from the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK.
That makes it seem more legitimate than this study.
Well, I do have a good track record.
I'll show you one aspect of what makes that study crapola.
1.) Time Frame:
Their baseline and follow up interviews aren't at regular intervals like they should be. Instead, they're closer to exponential which is weird.
So, basically... according to this "study", IF you smoke marijuana only 5 times over a 5 year period, your chances for getting psychosis "double"?
Does that sound farfetched?
So I'm guessing you like to smoke weed.
Having a potential cure for cancer isn't a good enough reason to call BS on fake studies that are so obviously fabricated / biased?
(Well, not obvious to people like you who may not be very bright. But, to me, it does appear somewhat obvious...If you have a problem with that, I have 100$ that says you're wrong. What do you have?)
If you guys want to get high and defend that by raging at conspiracy theories it is none of my business and you can do it all you like.
Again, I am not against it for medicinal purposes, my point is that to legalize it raises the idiocy factor in society and that's from personal experience.
Everyone is different also when it comes to tolerance and results, but just like alcohol, I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who uses, since it changes the person that I know into someone completely different and I personally don't find it cool or fun.
Cannabinoid Extract != Marijuana
The potential medical uses of cannabinoids are significant, marijuana to a lesser extent due to having complicating health variables in comparison to the former, and none of this has anything to do with the vast majority of marijuana advocates actual concerns.
The vast majority of people have zero problem with any substance being examined/used for medical purposes, so propaganda threads for medical marijuana are transparent in actual purpose.
Here's a hint to you fools that use marijuana's medical potential as an argument to introduce the idea of legalization for personal use: see steroids.
And the confirmation bias demonstrated by the thread-starter is ridiculous.
*plays some cannabis corpse*
The only real difference between a cannabinoid extract and a marijuana plant is... you can patent one of them & you can't patent the other. Your OMG the secret, hidden, boogeyman marijuana effect will get you, isn't fazing me. Truth be told, I don't smoke, drink or bother with things like weed. What do you have other than some lame pop culture stereotype that says I'm some poor weed dependent soul looking to leverage this to my own advantage?
Opium derived painkillers, their addictiveness and their propensity to cause people to overdose and die? Tell me how people like you completely ignore these maluses and negative effects while you drone on and on about the potential for marijuana to cause "psychosis" in studies that even you seem unwilling to defend.
Confirmation bias? Tell me more, plz. Mr. expert.
Well, I know how fond americans are of quoting the founding fathers.... Here:
Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with legalization. What interests me is how poeple blindly attack medical marijuana despite the mountains of evidence and medical data to the contrary. And also, the tendency for people to believe in these vacuous "studies" that say if you smoke marijuana today, you'll "get psychosis" in 10 years.
Yeah let's continue to ruin lives and throw people in jail over a largely harmless plant. That surely is a little thing compared to this "dumbing down" of society you see vaguely linked to using a drug.
Honestly the only "idiocy factor" here is from people who are against legalizing it, considering every single piece of logical evidence pretty much points right toward legalization. You have to be pretty ignorant to think otherwise. Considering your only evidence is anecdotal, I think I made my point.
Amen. But alas young people use those dangerous research chemicals as a substitute for the much safer marijuana. Oh society, how you have failed your youth.
Buying stocks in this right now.
Smell ya' later.
This can sum up pretty much every cannabis article that's come out the past 10 years.
At least in the 70s they didn't try to disguise it and try to gain approval
Wait.................Marijuana is still illegal!?!? , people actually dwell outside of LA, my bad, I forget this sometimes. Carry on.
Marijuana is key to world piece.
In your mind, maybe.
Even if there are problems with the study, which there probably are, it's still more scientifically valid than your source article, which reads like, and is, a piece of propaganda.
Bryan Paulsen has the answer below you. Just because something has some good qualities doesn't mean it is good for you. I heard some people use poison for like snakes or other animal chemicals that can be used to help find cures etc. Does that mean drinking or injecting the original source will cure you? No, extracting the good properties that can be studied and help patients.
And there is so many potential cures for cancer like tick saliva, etc., we are still in the development stage. Don't be like I smoke weed to prevent myself from getting cancer. I can understand if you have it and you want a higher chance of survival and you want to use all your options to stay alive.
I'm not saying anything against the material of the article, but first: It's by a organization that has a vested interest in seeing marijuana legalized.
Second: It's a "Marijuana Derivative Product"
Which is about as misleading as:
Spoiler: This cuddly guy cures cancer.
Unlike Marijuana, when you see this guy, you'll feel a burst of energy and have a strong inclination to exercise via sprinting.
Lol when I'm talking for myself in not enjoying the company of those who use, I don't see why personal experience shouldn't be a motivator for me.
Anyway, I know the right way to go about debating in NF Cafè is to give all the research I've found at least through the internet and that doing anything less would result in me showing myself off to be ignorant right?
I have the opposite opinion to you and find the harmlessness card of marijuana to be quite a silly one considering how mainstream research over it is and experience should be enough, ergo I find trying to prove myself fairly pointless when it comes to debating against somene who truly believes marijuana is harmless. I've had those sorts of long-winded debates IRL and boy are you guys staunch.
So far there have been 2 straight pages of debunking research from both sides and I don't feel like getting into that *again*. Maybe tomorrow.
Pretty much any drug used over an extended period of time can cause psychosis.
It's not about it being harmless. It's a drug. It's a chemical. It is most commonly smoked. Smoke is also bad in your lungs. Don't group me with those saying it's the cure to the world's woes.
Fact remains though that it is nobody's business but the individual's whether it should be used. The minute government gets involved in someone's right to smoke, I WILL cry foul against it as it goes against freedom of mind and an individual's right to privacy. Furthermore enforcing legal penalties for victimless crimes costs taxpayers' millions, imprisons millions more (frequently ruining a chance of a future for them), exacerbates crime and socioeconomic problems, and costs many, many people their livelihoods and lives.
The Drug War through propaganda and ignorance has exacted a toll far worse than the totality of the drug market combined could ever do.
What disturbs me the most is why you aren't as outraged by this as I and others are?
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and many, many prescription medications and has a lot of potential value, yet it is a Schedule I narcotic in the United States. Science and logic are not fundamental parts of government policy and seem not to be part of many voters' policies as well.
The real difference is that not all of marijuana is medicinal in nature, or capable of treating an illness.
That's the need for cannbinoid extract, especially in light of the reality that not all of marijuana has healthful uses.
Painkillers have a specific purpose, that there's a health drawback has absolutely fucking nothing to do with anything whatsoever. Welcome to the world of controlled substances that are prescribed by doctors for a reason.
Refusal to accept anything negative about your beloved marijuana makes you the walking, talking epitome of confirmation bias.
That's a markedly different issue from taking seriously both the good, and the bad that comes out of studies on it.
When anything negative about marijuana comes about, you immediately seek to discredit it. When anything positive comes out you immediately accept it with no critical thought.
You should be a creationist, you already have a lot in common with them.
Nobody is attacking medical marijuana in this thread. What they're attacking is your ridiculous confirmation bias. I'm also pointing out that it's asinine to conflate marijuana with an extract from it.
Let me break this down for you:
Cannabinoid extract is to marijuana as testosterone cypionate is to AAS.
You know how I know that analogy won't get through your skull? Because you're too damn ideologically bent to realize that changing the cannabinoid, or the type of AAS, significantly alters the effect on the body.
I hope this is sarcasm, I'm pretty sure it is but with the internet you can never be sure.
Young people don't have access to cannabinoid extract unless they work in a research lab involving precisely that, and the idea that marijuana is "safer" is without merit. Young people are usually smoking it to get high as opposed to medicating for an illness, and smoking carries with it its own health drawbacks (ie: smoking causes DNA damage regardless of it is tobacco or marijuana, yes there's studies on it).
As far as the war on drugs goes - people should be able to use whatever substance they want in recreation even if it damages their health, but that's a completely different ideological issue from the asinine argument that attempts to plead for legalization for personal use via its medicinal uses that is often used.
I hate to say this as you seem to know a little bit about this, but you're wrong. Unless of course we're arguing over semantics ("synthetic cannabinoids" vs. "cannabinoid extract").
Anyone can order research chemicals online and most are currently completely legal and a good amount of those are synthetic cannabinoids. JWH-018, JWH-073, HU-210, etc. are all commonly found. They aren't usually (by kids at least) ordered as the pure compounds, but are mixed with inactive herbs and sold as "Spice" or "K2" which affect the same receptors cannabis does in most cases except as a full agonist in most cases and usually with more dangerous effects.
Some have potential carcinogenic links as well as unknown effects on the brain, especially after much usage. Additionally they do have a far lower LD-50 than THC it seems as well as other detrimental health effects one might associate with things like stimulant usage (tachycardia for example).
I'm focusing on cannabinoid extract, not so much synthetic cannabinoids. The latter is used for medical testing/research as well of course, but acquiring cannabinoid extract from marijuana itself is beyond most people's means. That was the point, since synthetic cannabinoids invariably chemically differ from the base cannabinoid (in much the similar way carbon is often added to AAS to alter it from bioavailable testosterone to induce a specific effect).
So yeah, probably just semantics difference. If we're including synthetic cannabinoids then I'd agree with you contingent on the existing information I'm aware of about them.
I'm well aware of all this, hence the focus on cannabinoid extract from the plant itself.
Unfortunately the legality of those is primarily due to insufficient testing and skirting the legality of marijuana. That problem existed for years with prohormones in the fitness industry - they were wannabe steroids that induced more side-effects than their illegal cousins, and considerably less benefit. It's just the same problem "Spice" et alia right now, but with a different substance.
This is the first time I've seen the start of a healthy discussion in a long time in NF cafe.
Not even the medical association can disagree with this!
Did you see my post on page 1?
Compare opium derived painkillers to opium.
Does an opium derived painkiller magically and spontaneously eliminate each and every negative aspect of opium simply because its an extract?
Both opium and opium derived painkillers are 1) addictive 2) highly toxic 3) result in overdoses and deaths.
The thing you need to understand is corporations can't patent opium or weed. The reason they resort to 'extracts' is to produce a product that is patentable. The process doesn't necessarily result in a safer version of the original.
And, I sincerely doubt that you would have a prayer of showing a single instance where medical science was able to take something that had negative health effects on people and produce an extract that was completely safe.
Termite treated lumber is still laced with arsenic, your bath water still contains manganese which when inhaled will give you brain damage. Practically everything on earth is a health hazard. Yet, you yuppies still try to pretend that science somehow is making all these unsafe things safe, when it most definitely is not.
The portion of weed which contains anti-tumor effects is THC -- the psychoactive component. Can we agree on this?
If such is true, does it make sense to criticize weed for containing a psychoactive element which may cause psychosis, when the cannabinoid extract that is used for medical purposes is likely to contain the very same characteristics / traits?
Heh. I'm thinking of buying in. Its a gamble, though. If the FDA doesn't approve it, bankruptcy is the likely outcome...
The negative aspects of the drug are limited as much as possible while retaining the intended purpose of the drug, namely painkilling. The fact there's still drawbacks doesn't, in any fashion, eliminate a need to produce a better drug.
The same process is being gone through with cannabinoid extract in order to deemphasize negatives while emphasizing an intended purpose (fighting cancer), and is extremely common in developing drugs suited for specific medical usage to begin with.
No, we can't agree because it's flatly wrong.
THC isn't the only cannabinoid linked to fighting cancer (tumor, by definition, being a canerous growth). An example being cannabidiol, which doesn't run the psychoactive risks tetrahydracannabinol does.
That's why other cannabinoids are researched to begin with. They have similar potential without the drawbacks.
Alteration of the specific cannabinoids used alters the resulting effect on the body.
And it is compulsory to take seriously the issue of psychoactive components potentially causing side-effects (ie: psychosis) unrelated to the intended usage of the drug.
If the intended purpose can be achieved with other cannabinoids without necessarily requiring the psychoactive component, then that should be the preferred course of action. If additional cannabinoids can hinder THC's psychoactive effect while preserving its anti-cancer purposes, that also has to be investigated.
That's the point.
Opium is a natural painkiller used by civilizations as early as Rome. Every trait and characteristic opium has is shared by extracts.
Is there a real difference between opium and opium derived painkillers? No.
It may be said the only difference is the term 'extract' is utilized to take advantage of a legal loophole that allows pharmaceutical companies to patent and sell something that is normally illegal.
Opium derived painkillers are opium. They're repackaged opium that can be patented, sold and profited from.
One need only watch the news and take note of the large number of celebrities, athletes and others who OD on opium derived painkillers to say that medical science has done nothing to make them safer.
If so 'extracts' are nothing but an excuse to sell illegal opium as rebranded "opium derived painkillers" on a lame technicality.
eedit for 'trufax'.
When you say medical science makes opium extracts "safe" I'm certain the 70,000+ americans in rehab agree with you?
Every medical study I've seen states THC as being the portion with anti-tumor properties.
Maybe you can link something that says differently?
Methinks there's no point in continuing this discussion if you think there's no "real difference" between opium derived painkillers, and opium.
There is a very real difference, and a very real reason opium-derived painkillers are medically preferred over opium (hint: purity of extract, concentration achieves the desired effect with less risk).
The extract is utilized to test varying concentrations of cannabinoids (or other compounds) in the attempt to produce a desired effect. This doesn't happen with just marijuana, nor is it that big of a deal.
You have more reading to do, clearly. Opium-derived painkillers are not opium, just like isolated cannabinoids are not marijuana. The difference is massive.
You are obviously unaware of the fact that opium was significantly dangerous as a painkiller by itself because there was the issue of varying levels of compounds in turn either producing not enough of an effect, or too much based on quantity.
The invention of morphine made it consistent, and under the prescription of a doctor, safer.
At this point I can't even take you seriously anymore.
Safer for medical purposes. You can move the goalposts all you like, drug addiction is irrelevant.
Read studies on associated cannabinoids - ie: cannabidiol.
There's no excuse for ignorance.
Separate names with a comma.