# Can Weed Cure Cancer?



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 23, 2010)

I was driving home with my buddy a few nights ago, and we got to talking about pot. I mentioned that I thought it can cause cancer, even though it's never really been proven, and he corrected me by saying it can actually cure cancer. He told me a story of how there was a man who was given two weeks to live, due to cancer, and all he did for those two weeks was smoke weed. He went back to the hospital, and they found that his cancer had regressed. 

I didn't believe him at first, but then I did a little (and I mean very little) research. It turns out that weed has compounds which can actually cause regression in tumors. 

Here's the link I read, and there are others.
http://inventorspot.com/articles/can_pot_cure_cancer_9721

This is a topic that I don't know much about, and I would LOVE to think that weed cures cancer, but it's not that easy, for obvious reasons. I also know that weed has carcinogens. 

So I'm interested in hearing what knowledge everybody else has on this topic.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 23, 2010)

He's right. Weed is sometimes prescribed to cancer patients to help them through the chemo.


----------



## Willow (Aug 23, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> He's right. Weed is sometimes prescribed to cancer patients to help them through the chemo.


 This.

Though I don't think it can cure all kinds of cancers (i.e. bone cancer), it might just slow progression. I dunno though.


----------



## Cam (Aug 23, 2010)

Cannabis hasn't exactly been found to _cure_ cancer, but rather helps ease pain and encourages appetite with cancer patients going through various treatments

also inb4 weed causes cancer bla bla bla


----------



## Velystord (Aug 23, 2010)

its mainly used to dull the pain and used for various other things like to bring back appetite ect


----------



## Isen (Aug 23, 2010)

Regarding "curing" cancer.


----------



## Willow (Aug 23, 2010)

cmrnmrphy said:


> also inb4 weed causes cancer bla bla bla


Everything causes cancer. 

In all honesty, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it did. Though it's not as bad as actual cigarettes. Both come from a plant, though one's loaded with tar and other bad stuff. Pot's just grass rolled in a piece of paper I believe. :/


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Aug 23, 2010)

I haven't seen instances of cancer being eliminated by weed.

I've seen the almost complete allievation of symptoms of glaucoma by weed, and the end of tics in a friend.

I've also heard that rates of alzheimers are lower amongst cannabis users than the rest of the populace.


----------



## Cam (Aug 23, 2010)

Willow said:


> Everything causes cancer.
> 
> In all honesty, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it did. Though it's not as bad as actual cigarettes. Both come from a plant, though one's loaded with tar and other bad stuff. Pot's just grass rolled in a piece of paper I believe. :/



Very true, but the carcinogens in weed can be cut out

Water bong relieves carcinogen by like 80% or something like that

and also using a vaporizer relieves 100% of carcinogens


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 24, 2010)

yes


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2010)

No. Stop being stupid, most people in this thread. Weed is prescribed to cancer patients to help them cope with their pain.


----------



## Pine (Aug 24, 2010)

if you smoke enough of it you can feel like it does.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 24, 2010)

Believe it or not, a Harvard study released on April 17, 2007 shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread!

Researchers at Harvard tested the chemical THC in both lab and mouse studies. They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, THC actually activates naturally produced receptors to fight off lung cancer. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer. 

Harvard thinks it can o.o


----------



## Ratte (Aug 24, 2010)

fuck yeah let's toke up

...for lung cancer awareness


----------



## Cam (Aug 24, 2010)

Ratte said:


> fuck yeah let's toke up
> 
> ...for lung cancer awareness



Im down B)


----------



## Waffles (Aug 24, 2010)

Strange how things like this turn out :v People say pot is bad for you, yet it's proven to be 99% good and only 1% bad. The only 1% bad is that people may want to smoke pot for said good all day.
Luckily where I live, pot may soon be legalized on it's own! So HA! Who needs cancer???


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 24, 2010)

No, son, what you _think_ is a cure is anything but. The reduced tumor growth caused by the devil's weed is just Satan prolonging your life that you may suffer longer _and_ have more opportunity to sin, which you can't do if you're dead. Just as Jesus grew inside Mary without any outside help, aside from God's divine intervention, cancer is a gift from God that grows inside you, and like Jesus, delivers you from the Hell that is this world through the only means to redemption that exists, which is a slow, painful death. And just as Jesus refused to drink the wine offered to him by the Romans, you should refuse the herb even though doctor's prescribe it, as they are _the modern Romans_, unless of course they're *Jewish* doctors, in which case they're even more culpable.

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP AS I GO ALONG! THIS IS WHAT FUNDIES ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT POT AND CANCER!


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 24, 2010)

I doubt it can completely cure cancer.
I think it possible  to ease systems and help slow or maybe stop progression with other treatments.


----------



## Atona (Aug 24, 2010)

"Cure" kind of implies that it's a guaranteed fix. Weed though, has many  positive effects on the mind and body, better than most medicines out  there will do for you. Especially what with it not being physically  addictive and never having killed ANYONE. Coupled with a healthy diet,  chemo, and staying under the watchful eye of professionals, it's the  best thing you could do for yourself in such a situation.

I won't start whippin' out big words and getting scientific on you  because I understand it makes this sort of topic extremely boring and  hard to follow, especially for those with no interest in cannabis... And in the first place, I'm not a reputable source, which is something you must remember for EVERYTHING, especially something people like to demonize/worship. Question everything you see and hear.

Weed elevates most peoples mood, sometimes deeply and spiritually so.
It relieves chronic pain, nausea.
It increases appetite without issue, unlike most medication, which can cause stomach pains, bathroom issues, etc.
For many, it relieves anxiety.

 (note that for some, it causes anxiety. Especially if you smoke under  stressful conditions like paranoia. Until you smoke for years, remember  that it is a mood amplifier, not elevator, a la pavlov's dogs.)


So I could imagine it being extremely helpful during treatment.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Aug 24, 2010)

I'd be more than willing to find out,


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

ZiggyTheWolf said:


> I'd be more than willing to find out,


 dont have cancer but ill help


----------



## The DK (Aug 24, 2010)

Velystord said:


> dont have cancer but ill help



pass it this way, i want to try and prevent said cancer


----------



## Random_Observer (Aug 24, 2010)

Atona said:


> "Cure" kind of implies that it's a guaranteed fix. Weed though, has many  positive effects on the mind and body, better than most medicines out  there will do for you. Especially what with it not being physically  addictive and never having killed ANYONE. Coupled with a healthy diet,  chemo, and staying under the watchful eye of professionals, it's the  best thing you could do for yourself in such a situation.
> 
> I won't start whippin' out big words and getting scientific on you  because I understand it makes this sort of topic extremely boring and  hard to follow, especially for those with no interest in cannabis... And in the first place, I'm not a reputable source, which is something you must remember for EVERYTHING, especially something people like to demonize/worship. Question everything you see and hear.
> 
> ...


 
I sense we have a pothead in our midsts.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> I sense we have a pothead in our midsts.


 i didnt think i would see the day potheads got on FA


----------



## Random_Observer (Aug 24, 2010)

I know right, that means they must have gotten off their couch.


----------



## Kayze (Aug 24, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No. Stop being stupid, most people in this thread. Weed is prescribed to cancer patients to help them cope with their pain.


 I can't believe people didn't understand this.


----------



## Jw (Aug 24, 2010)

Medicinal pot's really only used to help with the pain and to increase the chemo patient's appetites (think the doctor-prescribed munchies).

As for saying it can cure cancer, I rather doubt that. it has too many good old-fashioned carcinogens in it (the things that mutate DNA to eventually cause cancer), so any benefits would definitely surprise me. 

Putting it simply, cancer is a mutation, but is still living human flesh. Malignancies are cancers that are replicating fast and attempting to spread (metastatic cancers are the bad ones that kill people). Radiation is used to target those living cells specifically. Chemotherapy is used to basically kill down those cancer cells  that have already spread. This often ends up poisoning and killing other cells, too (low immunity, hair falling out, and muscle weakness). Pot doesn't really "attack" human cells, so I'd seriously question the idea that pot beats cancer. 

 I'm going out on a limb here and saying the radiation therapy or chemotherapy is what is doing the job. The pot's more like a painkiller.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 24, 2010)

Velystord said:


> i didnt think i would see the day potheads got on FA


 
I know man. The zoophiles, pedos and wannabe rapists I can tolerate, but people who smoke pot really crosses the fucking line.



Random_Observer said:


> I know right, that means they must have gotten off their couch.


 
You mean to go to the basement and look it up? Not unlike how furries occasionally make the epic trek from that same basement to the same couch to catch CSI, Tyra, Mythbusters, Family Guy or some documentary on alternative lifestyles?


----------



## coward67 (Aug 24, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA

oh, wait, is this an actual lab study showing cancerous cells having apoptosis triggered by the presence of some of the chemicals found in Cannabis? i think it is.

not a cure for ALL cancers and research still needs to be done to further study it... but there are some chemicals in Cannabis that DO kill some forms of cancer while leaving healthy cells alone. does this qualify as a "cure?" maybe.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't believe it can cure it, at all. Only at extreme doses that will kill you much earlier.
It does relieve some pains though, and for medical use it is tool.


----------



## Jw (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA
> 
> oh, wait, is this an actual lab study showing cancerous cells having apoptosis triggered by the presence of some of the chemicals found in Cannabis? i think it is.
> 
> not a cure for ALL cancers and research still needs to be done to further study it... but there are some chemicals in Cannabis that DO kill some forms of cancer while leaving healthy cells alone. does this qualify as a "cure?" maybe.


 
Only problem with that video (like you mentioned) is that I cannot find a link to the study's findings. The description has a link to Seth goup, which you can visit at this website: thesethgroup.org, which calls cannabis a potential anti-carcinogen. I'm really impressed by what I saw, but I hope there's a full blown investigation soon enough-- it would be interesting to see if it works in other cancers and to learn why it doesn't effect healthy brain tissue while killing the cancer cells. 

Cool share, though-- looks really interesting, and I might have to eat my words eventually.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

jwmcd2 said:


> Only problem with that video (like you mentioned) is that I cannot find a link to the study's findings. The description has a link to Seth goup, which you can visit at this website: thesethgroup.org, which calls cannabis a potential anti-carcinogen. I'm really impressed by what I saw, but I hope there's a full blown investigation soon enough-- it would be interesting to see if it works in other cancers and to learn why it doesn't effect healthy brain tissue while killing the cancer cells.
> 
> Cool share, though-- looks really interesting, and I might have to eat my words eventually.


 
thanks, i've been following a lot of research regarding Cannabis. i will post a link to a forum i've been watching that's got a lot of information on the medicinal potential of Cannabis (with citations + links) though, the site is currently down for maintenance... (i know, it would sound awfully convenient but i will link)

the one thing that a lot of people seem to forget (or ignore) is that cannabis is not just one plant, there are thousands of different strains out there with different pro's and con's for different medical conditions. (for example, say i'm having a panic attack... i wouldn't want to take a predominantly Sativa strain since that would excite my brain and probably make the attack worse... whereas a heavy indica would have the tranquilizing effect i'd need to calm me down.)

there are a shit ton of different chemicals that contribute to the effect that it has on the body and mind... yeah, THC is the main one, but there are others.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No. Stop being stupid, most people in this thread. Weed is prescribed to cancer patients to help them cope with their pain.


 
This. 

God, once someone makes a thread about how weed brings people back from the dead I've lost all faith in humanity.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I know man. The zoophiles, pedos and wannabe rapists I can tolerate, but people who smoke pot really crosses the fucking line.


 
Actually, this. 

What's with all the potheads on here recently? I feel crazy for saying this, but I miss the sexual deviants on here, they were a lot less worse.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Actually, this.
> 
> What's with all the potheads on here recently? I feel crazy for saying this, but I miss the sexual deviants on here, they were a lot less worse.


 Wolf Bone was being sarcastic and you're being an imbecile. 

Also, "a lot less worse"? Seriously?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Wolf Bone was being sarcastic and you're being an imbecile.
> 
> Also, "a lot less worse"? Seriously?


 
Rapists and zoophiles are wrong, but I think that potheads who posion themselves and almost kill themselves are worser. They quite resemble EMOs.
They are all not tolerated, and what they do is a crime, but rapism and drugs are the most serious crimes out of them. I guess Darkwin's laws say that rapists are better than potheads.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Rapists and zoophiles are wrong, but I think that potheads who posion themselves and almost kill themselves are worser. They quite resemble EMOs.
> They are all not tolerated, and what they do is a crime, but rapism and drugs are the most serious crimes out of them. I guess Darkwin's laws say that rapists are better than potheads.



points for effort but ultimately a fail. sorry, better luck next time.



Darkwing said:


> Actually, this.
> 
> what's with all the ignorant, prohibitionist morons on here recently? I feel crazy for saying this, but I miss the sexual deviants on here, they were a lot less worse.


 
fixed.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 24, 2010)

Weed helps in easing pain and also bringing back the patient's appetite and curb nausea after their cancer treatments.


----------



## Geek (Aug 24, 2010)

There is no evidence.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Geek said:


> There is no evidence.


 
yeah, there is... 

and here you go!

http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/645925-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010-a.html

now, let's see how many pussies there are here whom will completely ignore this information and keep on whining like typical faggots?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> yeah, there is...
> 
> and here you go!
> 
> ...


 
My favorite was alcoholism.  Seriously, the cure is to get them mentally dependent on weed?


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> My favorite was alcoholism.  Seriously, the cure is to get them mentally dependent on weed?


 
well, in my personal opinion, it's better to be hooked on something that won't rot away at your liver, brain and kidneys... that and the mental addiction is easily treated... just, take their weed away for a week and they'll be just fine. they might be cranky and have a little trouble falling asleep at night (depending on how much they were using) but the mentally additive aspects of Cannabis are pretty easy to deal with, even for a very heavy user.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, in my personal opinion, it's better to be hooked on something that won't rot away at your liver, brain and kidneys... that and the mental addiction is easily treated... just, take their weed away for a week and they'll be just fine.


 
Bullshit, it's better not to be hooked on anything AT ALL.

I think you're seriously downplaying mental addictions.  Just look at how many people suffer from gambling addictions and even to an extent internet addictions.

These people don't just go cold turkey and are fine.  And they don't even have the excuse of introducing chemicals into their body to get a "high".

Who gives a shit if your organs are fine if your life goes down the shitter because you spend your hard-earned money on weed?  That you alienate yourself socially since A) it's still illegal to smoke it all over the country for recreation, B) at least 56% of the nation still doesn't want weed legalized, and C) even if it were legalized, those smoking it would have to deal with the same problems cigarette smokers face on a day-to-day basis, or have you not heard of the $15 pack of cigarettes in New York City?


----------



## Kommodore (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA
> 
> oh, wait, is this an actual lab study showing cancerous cells having apoptosis triggered by the presence of some of the chemicals found in Cannabis? i think it is.


 
No, that is a video showing a side-by-side comparison of normal and cancerous brain cells when exposed to certain chemicals. The lack of activity in the cancerous cells may or may not be attributed to the chemicals, but you certainly can't come to that conclusion on that basis alone. Now, the description on the Seth group's site gives more detail about the experiment, and it would seem that it has some affect on cancer growth. However, the fact that it can kill cancer cells does _not_ mean it is an effective treatment for cancer. There are plenty of factors that could make the chemical unfit for treatment even if on its own in a laboratory environment it can kill cancer cells. In other words, it has been shown that it can kill cancer cells, but not necessarily treat cancer. You need a proper study on that. 



Pianowolfy said:


> Researchers at Harvard tested the chemical THC in both lab and mouse studies. They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, THC actually activates naturally produced receptors to fight off lung cancer. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.


 Do you have a link to the study? The answer to the question "does cannabis, in all its forms, help fight cancer" isn't really up for debate, save perhaps on where you define how much it needs to help. There have been plenty of studies on the issue, all one needs to do is find them and _post_ them. Saying that Harvard did a study s all well and good but it doesn't mean much unless you can look at it yourself.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Bullshit, it's better not to be hooked on anything AT ALL.
> 
> I think you're seriously downplaying mental addictions.  Just look at how many people suffer from gambling addictions and even to an extent internet addictions.
> 
> ...


 
no, i'm not downplaying them. but i do recognize that like anything, there are shades of grey. i mean, the degree to which someone is addicted to anything is basically variable from person to person. besides, at the root of most mental addictions is very likely either a form of escapism or a means to get that "reward" mechanism in one's brain to fire. yeah, addictions aren't a laughing matter but they're not all this huge and scary beast like it sounds like you're suggesting. honestly, i know you're capable of thought that's deeper than what you've posted... son, i hate to say it but i am dissapoint.

and who gives a shit if my organs are fine? well, clearly you do. i mean, it's not often that i get nanny-state pinheads barking at the stuff i post but really, so long as i am not harming anyone else from what i do, how is it anyone's fucking business what i do in my own privay? 

oh yeah... nanny-state pinheads that believe that they're too stupid to live their own life so they get others to do it for them.

honestly, if that's your mindset, you might want to spark up a doobie. it'll do you a world of good.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> No, that is a video showing a side-by-side comparison of normal and cancerous brain cells when exposed to certain chemicals. The lack of activity in the cancerous cells may or may not be attributed to the chemicals, but you certainly can't come to that conclusion on that basis alone. Now, the description on the Seth group's site gives more detail about the experiment, and it would seem that it has some affect on cancer growth. However, the fact that it can kill cancer cells does _not_ mean it is an effective treatment for cancer. There are plenty of factors that could make the chemical unfit for treatment even if on its own in a laboratory environment it can kill cancer cells. In other words, it has been shown that it can kill cancer cells, but not necessarily treat cancer. You need a proper study on that.


 


Redregon said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA
> 
> oh, wait, is this an actual lab study showing cancerous cells having apoptosis triggered by the presence of some of the chemicals found in Cannabis? i think it is.
> 
> *not a cure for ALL cancers and research still needs to be done to further study it*... but there are some chemicals in Cannabis that DO kill some forms of cancer while leaving healthy cells alone. does this qualify as a "cure?" maybe.



if you are going to take posts out of context, at least do it in a way so that the original comment isn't on the same fucking page.

fuck... if all you that are for prohibition are like this winrar, california's proposition to have it legalized is in the motherfucking bag.

protip: facts... learn them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 24, 2010)

Shades of grey to addiction?  There's absolutely no such thing.  Addiction always has a negative connotation carried along with it.  Just look at the damn definition.  Addiction sparks social alienation and there's nothing positive about it, regardless of how you want to quantify it, which I don't believe you're qualified to do.  If you want to ignore that just so you can make lame claims about how helpful weed is to justify your usage of it, then I suppose ignorance is bliss.

And my statements have absolutely nothing to do with people using weed for recreational purposes.  I ostracized the suggestion that weed usage/dependence is an acceptable alternative to alcoholism.  Don't start this "FREEDUM OF PRIVCY" and nanny-state shit because that's not what I'm arguing.  I think you need to come back to Earth from your ivory tower.

No, it's not me who needs to spark a doobie, it's you who needs to put that shit down for two seconds.


----------



## VoidBat (Aug 24, 2010)

Weed, you want it? Only if you have enough cancer mah friend!


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Shades of grey to addiction?  There's absolutely no such thing.  Addiction always has a negative connotation carried along with it.  Just look at the damn definition.  Addiction sparks social alienation and there's nothing positive about it, regardless of how you want to quantify it, which I don't believe you're qualified to do.  If you want to ignore that just so you can make lame claims about how helpful weed is to justify your usage of it, then I suppose ignorance is bliss.
> 
> And my statements have absolutely nothing to do with people using weed for recreational purposes.  I ostracized the suggestion that weed usage/dependence is an acceptable alternative to alcoholism.  Don't start this "FREEDUM OF PRIVCY" and nanny-state shit because that's not what I'm arguing.  I think you need to come back to Earth from your ivory tower.
> 
> No, it's not me who needs to spark a doobie, it's you who needs to put that shit down for two seconds.



*chuckles* you're funny... all i'm saying is that there is the potential for medical use of the plant in the beginning of this argument (not to mention recreationally and how it's nobody's damn business what i do at home.) that and i only posted a collection of links to actual news articles and actual scientific studies. 

but wait, when the facts don't actually support your argument, that means that someone is wrong. am i going to trust some idiot on a website or am i going to trust actual people that have studied the shit (using the *GASP* scientific method?) gee, let me think... 

(sarcasm) wow, that's a hard one to answer (/sarcasm)


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

VoidBat said:


> Weed, you want it? Only if you have enough cancer mah friend!


 
or if you have a quack-doctor and are just some loser who wants to game the medicinal cannabis systems.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> *chuckles* you're funny... all i'm saying is that there is the potential for medical use of the plant in the beginning of this argument (not to mention recreationally and how it's nobody's damn business what i do at home.) that and i only posted a collection of links to actual news articles and actual scientific studies.
> 
> but wait, when the facts don't actually support your argument, that means that someone is wrong. am i going to trust some idiot on a website or am i going to trust actual people that have studied the shit (using the *GASP* scientific method?) gee, let me think...
> 
> (sarcasm) wow, that's a hard one to answer (/sarcasm)


 
Of course you also post articles which further your case, completely disregarding a host of other research which points to marijuana use inhibiting the immune system, which has the potential to cause more problems than what they are intended to solve, as seen here.  The science isn't completely in your favor and the jury is still out on a bunch of things on both sides of the debate.  To declare that marijuana is God's gift to medicine, just so you can justify why you smoke, is extremely irresponsible.

And I think that's what this really comes down to, this lame campaign for medical marijuana when that's not even the real issue at hand.  The medical marijuana argument is presented more by people who want to smoke it for recreational purposes rather than actual doctors.  I doubt even you actually care about what the medical benefits are, just as long as you can light up.  

I smoked weed on a somewhat regular basis and defended it on these boards in the past.  Not once have I ever felt the need to justify my past usage or the continuing usage of it of members on here by presenting the medical marijuana debate because obviously that's not what I'm, or anyone else on here who's smoked it, is using it for.  Your smug attitude about the whole thing certainly doesn't help the cause either.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Of course you also post articles which further your case, completely disregarding a host of other research which points to marijuana use inhibiting the immune system, which has the potential to cause more problems than what they are intended to solve, as seen here.  The science isn't completely in your favor and the jury is still out on a bunch of things on both sides of the debate.  To declare that marijuana is God's gift to medicine, just so you can justify why you smoke, is extremely irresponsible.
> 
> And I think that's what this really comes down to, this lame campaign for medical marijuana when that's not even the real issue at hand.  The medical marijuana argument is presented more by people who want to smoke it for recreational purposes rather than actual doctors.  I doubt even you actually care about what the medical benefits are, just as long as you can light up.
> 
> I smoked weed on a somewhat regular basis and defended it on these boards in the past.  Not once have I ever felt the need to justify my past usage or the continuing usage of it of members on here by presenting the medical marijuana debate because obviously that's not what I'm, or anyone else on here who's smoked it, is using it for.  Your smug attitude about the whole thing certainly doesn't help the cause either.


 
right... so, my arguments that it could be used in a medical way somehow translates into me saying "yay, let's all smoke pot!" 

sorry, but the faggot brigade has already left the building... but if you run really quick, you might be able to catch up with them.

p.s. if you really believe that's how i feel about medical cannabis, you must have conveniently skipped the comment where i'm calling the losers that abuse the current systems in place out on their cowardly bullshit.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> sorry, but the faggot brigade has already left the building.


 
Dude, last time I checked, t.dot's population's pretty much the same as last time I was there. Dem a fag then too so I don't know who you're fooling besides yourself.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> right... so, my arguments that it could be used in a medical way somehow translates into me saying "yay, let's all smoke pot!"
> 
> sorry, but the faggot brigade has already left the building... but if you run really quick, you might be able to catch up with them.


 
Show me, with quotes, where I said your argument was "let's all smoke pot!"  Once again you're blowing what I'm saying way out of proportion.  I think your ego is getting in the way of your ability to read.

Also, sick diss buddy.  "Anybody who doesn't agree with me is a faggot."  Wow, can't argue with that logic.  Maybe you should try out defending WBC, you'd fit right in with those people.

There's no need to do a P.S.  We're using the internet, with edit buttons.  It's completely unnecessary.  Just because you called out people doesn't make me think that your motives go beyond, "if it's okay for me to do it medically, it should be okay for me to do it just because."


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

interesting to note, more than half of the "citations" on the link that you provided do not exist (as in, no webpages to link to) as well as from the wording of the article, it sounds to me like all that they're focusing on is the smoking of it... which i will admit, when you smoke ANY plant matter and inhale it into the lungs, it is going to cause damage.

however, what about eating it? what about using a vaporizer? (which, if you talk to medical users, more than half of them use one)

i smell yellow journalism and half-baked research trying SO VERY HARD to contradict more than 3000 years of it's use and about 30-40 years of it being studied in the modern era. (i could go all paranoid hack and suggest that those studies are flawed merely because they look to be commissioned by the government and the DEA... which has a vested interest in it's prohibited status remaining as it is... but, i'm not a paranoid hack. i just smoke occaisionally (about once a month or so.)


----------



## VoidBat (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> or if you have a quack-doctor and are just some loser who wants to game the medicinal cannabis systems.


 
Where there's possibilities, there's profit to be made. 

Legal or illegal, no system is perfect and there will always be loopholes and gaps for people to exploit.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Show me, with quotes, where I said your argument was "let's all smoke pot!"  Once again you're blowing what I'm saying way out of proportion.  I think your ego is getting in the way of your ability to read.
> 
> Also, sick diss buddy.  "Anybody who doesn't agree with me is a faggot."  Wow, can't argue with that logic.  Maybe you should try out defending WBC, you'd fit right in with those people.
> 
> There's no need to do a P.S.  We're using the internet, with edit buttons.  It's completely unnecessary.  Just because you called out people doesn't make me think that your motives go beyond, "if it's okay for me to do it medically, it should be okay for me to do it just because."


 


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Who gives a shit if your organs are fine if your life goes down the shitter because you spend your hard-earned money on weed?  That you alienate yourself socially since A) it's still illegal to smoke it all over the country for recreation, B) at least 56% of the nation still doesn't want weed legalized, and C) even if it were legalized, those smoking it would have to deal with the same problems cigarette smokers face on a day-to-day basis, or have you not heard of the $15 pack of cigarettes in New York City?



is that not an argument in the context of recreational use? smells like it to me. if that's not what you meant to put forth, well, then just edit it or whatever... i really don't care. if you think that's how all medical users are like, you're both an idiot and an asshole for suggesting that medical users are just idiot potheads. 

and if you don't like my insults, that's fine by me. i'd have to care about you as a person to consider taking your response to it to heart.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Dude, last time I checked, t.dot's population's pretty much the same as last time I was there. Dem a fag then too so I don't know who you're fooling besides yourself.


 
bitch, please.

just because you're still butthurt about a handful of faggot furries from years ago burning you doesn't mean all toronto furries are the same.

grow the fuck up.


EDIT: shit son, you sound just like DanSkunk or that failure RedWolf that bailed out to the east coast.


----------



## Cam (Aug 24, 2010)

Support your local cannabis dealer B)


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> is that not an argument in the context of recreational use? smells like it to me. if that's not what you meant to put forth, well, then just edit it or whatever... i really don't care. if you think that's how all medical users are like, you're both an idiot and an asshole for suggesting that medical users are just idiot potheads.
> 
> and if you don't like my insults, that's fine by me. i'd have to care about you as a person to consider taking your response to it to heart.



No those are issues concerning an individual's addiction causing alienation.  No where in that did I talk about the context of recreational use, but ADDICTED USE.  Seems like all you were smelling was your own ass because your head was so far up it.



> i smell yellow journalism and half-baked research trying SO VERY HARD to contradict more than 3000 years of it's use and about 30-40 years of it being studied in the modern era.



Yellow journalism?  Well, weed can cause paranoia, so I can dig it.  Of course that website is hosted by HARVARD, so obviously it's just some bullshit anti-pot nonsense and there's no possibility weed could compromise the immune system.  Oh, wait.  Does this completely destroy cannabis' use for medical purposes?  No, but it does propose the need for MORE studies which could take up to 10 years.

And I don't personally care about your personal insults to me.  I'm pointing out how it doesn't exactly help your argument.  Your abrasive attitude certainly isn't going to make me think that your motivations go beyond your personal need to smoke and that you actually care about medical marijuana, just so long as it helps justify the ends of you personally getting high.


----------



## Nyloc (Aug 24, 2010)

Yeah, and overdosing on heroin can prevent life threatening ailments by inhibiting a mild case of death in the user. See kids, drugs are _good for you!_

That was stupid, I'll admit. But for terminal cancers, however, I can see that the use of Cannabis as a solution to the pain might as well be as good as a cure. If I knew I was going to die a slow and painful death then hell, I wouldn't mind being baked out of my mind to numb the pain and ease the passing.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Does this completely destroy cannabis' use for medical purposes?  No, *but it does propose the need for MORE studies *which could take up to 10 years.
> 
> And I don't personally care about your personal insults to me.  I'm pointing out how it doesn't exactly help your argument.  Your abrasive attitude certainly isn't going to make me think that your motivations go beyond your personal need to smoke and that you actually care about medical marijuana, just so long as it helps justify the ends of you personally getting high.



umm... read back... the highlighted part is what i've been suggesting before this turned into a clusterfuck.

though, it's funny how you think that i secretly want to use the medical cannabis system to smoke legally... if i'm going to smoke, i'll just go out and meet up with my "Guy." yes, it would be nice if it's legal then i could actually support the government instead of drug cartels and gangs, but that's beside the point. calling that into the light the way you have is just a poor attempt at an ad-hominem. 

but hey, this is the internet. where if someone is "Wrong" it's the motherfucking end of the world. *OOOH, SCARYFACE!*


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 24, 2010)

So I knew having cancer would pay off one day.

Well.
There.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> points for effort but ultimately a fail. sorry, better luck next time.


 
What

your couch


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> What
> 
> your couch


 
dude, you can't re-take it... just accept the fail and get over it.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 24, 2010)

Only confirmed "cures" for cancer are amputation and radiation. Weed is just used to help them cope with the pain of the cancer, not to cure it.


----------



## Asswings (Aug 24, 2010)

I just had to stick my head in here and say this:



Velystord said:


> i didnt think i would see the day potheads got on FA





Darkwing said:


> Actually, this.
> 
> What's with all the potheads on here recently? I feel crazy for saying  this, but I miss the sexual deviants on here, they were a lot less  worse.



Seriously? You guys think this is NEW?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2010)

Weed has more uses than I thought it had.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

think about it like this would you
a) like to take 10 pills a day for pain most of which have deadly side effects
or
b) smoke/ingest/vaporize something that not only stops the pain but will also product a effect of happiness

once you have seen somebody die in front of you in incredible amounts of pain while on morphine you really want a better alternative
my friend died of cancer of the bone so if you can imagine the pain she went through


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 24, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> Do you have a link to the study? The answer to the question "does cannabis, in all its forms, help fight cancer" isn't really up for debate, save perhaps on where you define how much it needs to help. There have been plenty of studies on the issue, all one needs to do is find them and _post_ them. Saying that Harvard did a study s all well and good but it doesn't mean much unless you can look at it yourself.


 
That paragraph actually came from the article I read. I don't know if there was a link to the study on it or not =/

Also, I'd like to point out that I'd smoked weed once in my life, so this isn't a thread made by a pothead. I'm legit interested in this because it goes back to things like legalizing it, etc. not to mention if there is any truth to these studies, I think it's an interesting topic.

edit, after reading the rest of the posts: o.o guys chill out, no need to argue lol...have some pot! It'll make you feel better ^^
n if you happen to have cancer, I hope it heals you. Let me know -_-


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> bitch, please.
> 
> just because you're still butthurt about a handful of faggot furries from years ago burning you doesn't mean all toronto furries are the same.
> 
> ...



K, just to clarify; first off, in Toronto, I was burned by one anime obsessed charity case, her (not) friends, several cokeheads and the police. None of these people were furries. Second, I'm not tarring furries as sketchbags as much as taking a massive shit on the city as a whole, which is pretty fucking common in this country, no shortage of it from within Toronto _itself_. Last but not least, saying something markedly 'hood like every fucking sentence just makes you come across as weak and insecure - which damn near every person I met in that city is and it's painful to watch.



Asswings said:


> I just had to stick my head in here and say this:
> Seriously? You guys think this is NEW?


 
I like how the second one especially is making a distinction between people who smoke pot and people that are sick fucks, and defending the sick fucks as if they have even *an inch* of moral high ground in this issue. It's a pretty false fucking dichotomy in the first place but the day you're siding with the latter over *anybody* is the day you gotta look in the mirror and take a serious look at your priorities and (probably non-existent) social circle.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> K, just to clarify; first off, in Toronto, I was burned by one anime obsessed charity case, her (not) friends, several cokeheads and the police. None of these people were furries. Second, I'm not tarring furries as sketchbags as much as taking a massive shit on the city as a whole, which is pretty fucking common in this country, no shortage of it from within Toronto _itself_. Last but not least, saying something markedly 'hood like every fucking sentence just makes you come across as weak and insecure - which damn near every person I met in that city is and it's painful to watch.


 
allright, so i'll admit i wasn't correct in the assumption that it was a bunch of furries. still, making the assumption that all of the city is filled with those sorts is pretty damn weak and you know it. 

the rest? as in how i've peppered swear words among what i've said? well, i'll tell you this.

don't care... bitch more please.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> allright, so i'll admit i wasn't correct in the assumption that it was a bunch of furries. still, making the assumption that all of the city is filled with those sorts is pretty damn weak and you know it.
> 
> the rest? as in how i've peppered swear words among what i've said? well, i'll tell you this.
> 
> don't care... bitch more please.


 
I'm sorry, but in no other fucking town I've ever been in would a cop literally run away from me, a white, unarmed civilian when I approach them just to ask a question. So while I do feel some sympathy for the people living there, I can't see the city _itself_ as anything but a failed society.

Now back on the God damned topic because I'm done arguing with someone blinded to the realities of their own back yard...

One video I've seen, better than anything on the internet that kills any comparison between pot and crack.

[yt]ZmgE9csoMek[/yt]

That said, weed will *not* cure cancer - and what you just witnessed is cancer.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I'm sorry, but in no other fucking town I've ever been in would a cop literally run away from me, a white, unarmed civilian when I approach them just to ask a question. So while I do feel some sympathy for the people living there, I can't see the city _itself_ as anything but a failed society.
> 
> Now back on the God damned topic because I'm done arguing with someone blinded to the realities of their own back yard...
> 
> ...


 
oh, hahah, sneaking in one last stab! how can i be as edgy and as cool as you? :B

past that, however, i don't know if using that clip is really all that great of an example... i mean, that's a viral for a series on HBO... not a real crackhead (as far as i know.) if you want to see a good example of the differences between a hard drug addict and potsmokers, do some work at a methadone clinic. the best, most well adjusted addict there doesn't even come close to the worst i've seen from pot-smokers. (though some have come pretty damn close if you ask me.)

on the rest, however, for anyone that's interested in seeing another side to it all, watch "the Union." yeah, it's not 100% unbiased (what is nowadays? everyone has an agenda afterall...) but it's pretty good at showing another side to the whole issue of prohibition and it even shows some interviews with some medicinal Cannabis users both before and after "toking up."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Wolf Bone was being sarcastic and you're being an imbecile.
> 
> Also, "a lot less worse"? Seriously?


 


CynicalCirno said:


> Rapists and zoophiles are wrong, but I think that potheads who posion themselves and almost kill themselves are worser. They quite resemble EMOs.
> They are all not tolerated, and what they do is a crime, but rapism and drugs are the most serious crimes out of them. I guess Darkwin's laws say that rapists are better than potheads.


 
I know that rapists and zoophiles are actually worse, but at least zoophiles and rapists don't go around posting online about how raping animals can cure cancer. 



Redregon said:


> fixed.


 
Correction. I am not prohibitionist. 

As much as I hate potheads, I believe they should be allowed to smoke all they want. Victimless crimes are unnecessary, unfair and a waste of money.


----------



## Ffzzynxnynxxyninx (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I know that rapists and zoophiles are actually worse, but at least zoophiles and rapists don't go around posting online about how raping animals can cure cancer.


 
Is this, by any chance, directed toward me? =/


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 24, 2010)

Atona said:


> "Cure" kind of implies that it's a guaranteed fix. Weed though, has many  positive effects on the mind and body, better than most medicines out  there will do for you. Especially what with it not being physically  addictive *and never having killed ANYONE*. Coupled with a healthy diet,  chemo, and staying under the watchful eye of professionals, it's the  best thing you could do for yourself in such a situation.


 
I found this interesting:  http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000231


----------



## Atona (Aug 24, 2010)

I like how the lot of this thread, instead of taking a solid stance on  legalization, beneficial or curative effects of cannabis, negative  effects of it, and its all-around interaction with cancer and  success/failures with cancer patients, find a way to bicker about the  most inane, trivial aspects (most of which is unrelated to the topic.)



Darkwing said:


> I know that rapists and zoophiles are actually  worse, but at least zoophiles and rapists don't go around posting online  about how raping animals can cure cancer.
> 
> Correction. I am not prohibitionist.
> 
> As  much as I hate potheads, I believe they should be allowed to smoke all  they want. Victimless crimes are unnecessary, unfair and a waste of  money.


 
I really respect this. You're truly a wise person for not letting your  disdain for the substance get in the way of how you believe it and the  people who use it should be "handled."

Pianowolfy- You did absolutely nothing wrong. You presented your story, you asked a question, and you showed us what you found on the subject on your own. Both those for it and against it should have no bone to pick with you.  

Roose Hurro- I'm not sure if this is supposed to add to or combat my statement. Either way, for the sake of covering bases, I should say now that I am talking about actual marijuana overdose, not an allergic reaction, an asthma attack due to smoking it, etc. That's probably obvious because one wouldn't say that milk kills people if someone choked on it, but I feel it needs to be said.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 24, 2010)

Atona said:


> Roose Hurro- I'm not sure if this is supposed to add to or combat my statement. Either way, for the sake of covering bases, I should say now that I am talking about actual marijuana overdose, not an allergic reaction, an asthma attack due to smoking it, etc. That's probably obvious because one wouldn't say that milk kills people if someone choked on it, but I feel it needs to be said.


 
I found the link interesting because it gave pro and con on the issue, and I did bold the part of the quote I was refering to.  I found it interesting that experts were on both sides of the "death by weed" issue.


----------



## Atona (Aug 24, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> I found the link interesting because it gave  pro and con on the issue, and I did bold the part of the quote I was  refering to.  I found it interesting that experts were on both sides of  the "death by weed" issue.


 
Ah, okay. 
Yeah, stuff like this is why I said that you should question everything;  both sides seem to be respectable professionals with good points. It's  really hard to sort bullshit from truth from theories from facts from  smears from mindless advocation. I suppose it's that way with most topics, but seeing as the entire reason why it's illegal is BECAUSE of a smear campaign from some tycoon simply not wanting his business to get competitors, sketchiness is bumped up a notch.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7331006790306000271&hl=en&emb=1#

here's another vid about the potential cancer curing abilities of Cannabis. remember, the guy featured wasn't selling it, he was just giving it out to the people he knew free of charge. 

this would, assuming it's valid (and i have no reason not to believe it) would support a lot of the research that's been provided so far about the potential of Cannabis.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

Pianowolfy said:


> Is this, by any chance, directed toward me? =/



Nah, I have nothing against you, it's your opinion. But I personally think that the people who actually believe that weed cures everything and is some kind of miracle substance are being silly. 

I don't think that weed necessarily cures cancer. I think it just treats most of the pain. However I do think that a lot more research should be put into cannabis to really see if it can actually be used to eliminate cancer or not. 



Atona said:


> I really respect this. You're truly a wise person for not letting your  disdain for the substance get in the way of how you believe it and the  people who use it should be "handled."


 
Thank you. I strongly believe this should be kept a free country, the legalization of weed would be a very big step for our government to be less controlling than it is today. 

I don't let my hatred for a group of people/substance cloud my view of it in politics. I really wish more people would follow my philosophy, though, especially today where people, specifically conservatives/Republicans, let their hatred cloud the true meaning of freedom.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 24, 2010)

Atona said:


> Ah, okay.
> Yeah, stuff like this is why I said that you should question everything;  both sides seem to be respectable professionals with good points. *It's  really hard to sort bullshit from truth from theories from facts from  smears from mindless advocation.* I suppose it's that way with most topics, but seeing as the entire reason why it's illegal is BECAUSE of a smear campaign from some tycoon simply not wanting his business to get competitors, sketchiness is bumped up a notch.


 
In my research on the matter, this seems to be the case, more often than not.  And yes, I've heard the story of why weed was made illegal... something to do with the fact clothing made of hemp fibers is incredibly durable.  I remember reading something about a dress, or some article of clothing, made of hemp, that was still intact and wearable after a hundred years.  Oh, we can't have that, can we?!  Whatever, it certainly is curious, all this controversy between professionals.  More research is definitely needed.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Nah, I have nothing against you, it's your opinion. But I personally think that the people who actually believe that weed cures everything and is some kind of miracle substance are being silly.
> 
> I don't think that weed necessarily cures cancer. I think it just treats most of the pain. However I do think that a lot more research should be put into cannabis to really see if it can actually be used to eliminate cancer or not.
> .


In one of the latest studies, researchers Robert Ramer and Burkhard Hinz  from the Institute of Toxicology and Pharmacology at the University of  Rostock in Germany have found that cannabinoid compounds, such as  tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and methanandamide (MA), can cause the  regression of highly invasive cancers, including cervical cancer and  lung carcinoma.

Does anyone ever actually read the links in the OP anymore?


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> In one of the latest studies, researchers Robert Ramer and Burkhard Hinz  from the Institute of Toxicology and Pharmacology at the University of  Rostock in Germany have found that cannabinoid compounds, such as  tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and methanandamide (MA), can cause the  regression of highly invasive cancers, including cervical cancer and  lung carcinoma.
> 
> Does anyone ever actually read the links in the OP anymore?


 
Regression, not necessarily elimination. 

Idk, I'm a little iffy about the link and the study. More research and study is needed for me to actually believe that weed can eliminate cancer, but for now I believe that weed only treats the pain and helps people eat.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Regression, not necessarily elimination.
> 
> Idk, I'm a little iffy about the link and the study. More research and study is needed for me to actually believe that weed can eliminate cancer, but for now I believe that weed only treats the pain and helps people eat.


 Regression is a huge step to elimination.

Note, if I ever get cancer of the lung or cervical variety I will NOT take chemotherapy. I've seen first hand of what that shit does to people. It's not worth it. Pass a blunt and the cheetos.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Regression, not necessarily elimination.
> 
> Idk, I'm a little iffy about the link and the study. More research and study is needed for me to actually believe that weed can eliminate cancer, but for now I believe that weed only treats the pain and helps people eat.


 
so, all the links that have been provided so far is not enough?

wow.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Regression is a huge step to elimination.
> 
> Note, if I ever get cancer of the lung or cervical variety I will NOT take chemotherapy. I've seen first hand of what that shit does to people. It's not worth it. Pass a blunt and the cheetos.


 


Redregon said:


> so, all the links that have been provided so far is not enough?
> 
> wow.


 
Meh, I don't take that whole study for granted, but who knows, someday I may be eating my words.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Meh, I don't take that whole study for granted, but who knows, someday I may be eating my words.


 
not just that study... the hundreds of others linked from the "Grasscity" link. afaik you shouldn't have to be a member to view it and even if you don't read all of them (there are a hell of a lot) even a couple that are centered around just cancer.

though, i hate to say it, but GC has been having difficulty with their new forum upgrade so if the link changes by the time they're back up, i'll repost the correct one.


----------



## Mordin_Solus (Aug 24, 2010)

Influx of Cannabinoids into human systems reduces empirical aptitude.  Fidelity of study results questionable.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 24, 2010)

Redregon said:


> not just that study... the hundreds of others linked from the "Grasscity" link. afaik you shouldn't have to be a member to view it and even if you don't read all of them (there are a hell of a lot) even a couple that are centered around just cancer.
> 
> though, i hate to say it, but GC has been having difficulty with their new forum upgrade so if the link changes by the time they're back up, i'll repost the correct one.


 
Grasscity? That's a forum, can't read anything because there's maintenance or something, but are these amateur studies done by the users of the site, or are they more professional studies actually tested in professional labs?


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 24, 2010)

I think there may be some benefits to smoking weed if you have those illnesses that are potentially life extinguishing...

However the liklihood of abuse make it highly impractical


----------



## Redregon (Aug 24, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Grasscity? That's a forum, can't read anything because there's maintenance or something, but are these amateur studies done by the users of the site, or are they more professional studies actually tested in professional labs?


 
links to both news articles and scientific studies.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 25, 2010)

Redregon said:


> links to both news articles and scientific studies.


 
Sounds interesting, will check it out later.


----------



## Ratte (Aug 25, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Meh, I don't take that whole study for granted, but who knows, someday I may be eating my words.


 
in the form of hashbrownies


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 25, 2010)

Ratte said:


> in the form of hashbrownies


 
Are you saying that I'm gonna get cancer? ;__;


----------



## Redregon (Aug 25, 2010)

Ratte said:


> in the form of hashbrownies


 
interesting that you would say that 

though, if it is eventually proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the chemical compounds in Cannabis do kill cancerous cells, maybe they'd add hashbrownies to the list of recommended foods to eat? kinda like how antioxidants are all the rage nowadays.

p.s. Darkwing, looks like Grasscity is back up for now. link is the same but to save you from having to dig through this thread for it... 
http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/645925-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010-a.html


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 25, 2010)

Redregon said:


> p.s. Darkwing, looks like Grasscity is back up for now. link is the same but to save you from having to dig through this thread for it...
> http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/645925-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010-a.html


 
Wow, very interesting. 

And lol, even FOX News has an article about it. 

Wow, there may be some medical benefits to weed after all, although I'm still a little iffy about it, more studies should be done in more professional labs. Some of these links are just articles by the media that says that this person claims that weed cured this.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 25, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Wow, very interesting.
> 
> And lol, even FOX News has an article about it.
> 
> Wow, there may be some medical benefits to weed after all, although I'm still a little iffy about it, *more studies should be done in more professional lab*s. Some of these links are just articles by the media that says that this person claims that weed cured this.


 
I completely agree... if it is showing potential with cancer and those others, what else could it help with? won't know until it can be researched more thoroughly and that is sometimes rather difficult given it's current prohibited status.


----------



## Slyck (Aug 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Wolf Bone was being sarcastic and you're being an imbecile.
> 
> Also, "a lot less worse"? Seriously?


No, he just misunderestimated it.


----------



## slydude851 (Aug 25, 2010)

Possibly, it may work but I'm a bit doubtful that it can _completely _cure it.  If it does then it'll ignite a whole string of debates about legalizing use of it in medicine, then more fights about legalizing it altogether.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 25, 2010)

Redregon said:


> I completely agree... if it is showing potential with cancer and those others, what else could it help with? won't know until it can be researched more thoroughly and that is sometimes rather difficult given it's current prohibited status.


 
Yeah. 

Well, once the war is completely over and all the troops are sent back, I'm pretty sure we are gonna start focusing a lot more on what's going on here, hopefully they are gonna start focusing more on weed legalization.


----------



## Slyck (Aug 25, 2010)

Well, chances are everyone has a few cancerous cell in them somewhere. So, I think the best thing to to would be to go spark up just in case. You know, for safety.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 25, 2010)

Slyck said:


> Well, chances are everyone has a few cancerous cell in them somewhere. So, I think the best thing to to would be to go spark up just in case. You know, for safety.


 
that would be a good idea, except, I don't even smoke cigs.


----------



## Atona (Aug 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> that would be a good idea, except, I don't even smoke cigs.


 
A vast amount of people who smoke weed don't. In fact, I can only think of one person I know that smokes weed AND cigarettes.
I absolutely hate even being around cigarettes; they make me nauseous and give me a headache. Not only that, but they seem to be very hard to quit for people. Nicotine withdrawal will effect you physically, and I hear the craving pangs are immense. You can put down weed and any battles you have from there are completely mental. Which is why I raise an eyebrow to people who claim to have an addiction to marijuana, they're either lying or they're so mentally weak that they'd be doing themselves better to seek help for having an addictive nature.

Not that I'm trying to hate on people who smoke... I just find cigarettes to be offensive to all senses. THEY ARE STINKY


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 25, 2010)

Atona said:


> A vast amount of people who smoke weed don't. In fact, I can only think of one person I know that smokes weed AND cigarettes.
> I absolutely hate even being around cigarettes; they make me nauseous and give me a headache. Not only that, but they seem to be very hard to quit for people. Nicotine withdrawal will effect you physically, and I hear the craving pangs are immense. You can put down weed and any battles you have from there are completely mental.
> 
> Not that I'm trying to hate on people who smoke... I just find cigarettes to be offensive to all senses.



I don't smoke anything. I don't even drink much. I'm quite a boring person. :/


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 25, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Well, once the war is completely over and all the troops are sent back, I'm pretty sure we are gonna start focusing a lot more on what's going on here, *hopefully they are gonna start focusing more on weed legalization*.


 
Hopefully they're gonna start focusing on bringing jobs back into this country.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 25, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hopefully they're gonna start focusing on bringing jobs back into this country.



I think jobs are more important than weed, so I agree with Roose.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I think jobs are more important than weed, so I agree with Roose.


 
Can't buy weed (legal or not) if you don't have an income.


----------



## Slyck (Aug 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't smoke anything. I don't even drink much. I'm quite a boring person. :/


 See that plant? Smoke it. See that pill? Take it. See that booze? Drink it.

Regards, Dolan.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hopefully they're gonna start focusing on bringing jobs back into this country.


 
It'll never happen.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 25, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> Possibly, it may work but I'm a bit doubtful that it can _completely _cure it.  If it does then it'll ignite a whole string of debates about legalizing use of it in medicine, then more fights about legalizing it altogether.


 there's already debates about legalizing it for medicinal use. Hell, in a few states it IS legal for medicinal use.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Aug 25, 2010)

SORRY THAT WAS MEAN EVERYBODY

IM SORRY

GO BACK TO BEING DUMB


AGAIN, SORRY


----------



## Redregon (Aug 25, 2010)

Slyck said:


> Well, chances are everyone has a few cancerous cell in them somewhere. So, I think the best thing to to would be to go spark up just in case. You know, for safety.


 
wouldn't it be more effective to eat it instead? 

i mean, smoking is a rather wasteful way to use it.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

buy a vaporizer


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 25, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> It'll never happen.


 
Yeah, sorry to say, most likely.  But I can always hope!  And keep my eye on the want ads, fingers crossed.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

lol theres a place in cali where a guy sell high grade stuff as a coffee shop front something like amsterdam university or something and the coffeeb shop front is so kids can stay in the front while parents go back to get the goods and the county makes a killing in tax


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yeah, sorry to say, most likely.  But I can always hope!  And keep my eye on the want ads, fingers crossed.


 and jobs will never come back to this country as long as you can hire a sweat shop working in a factory over seas
also if you want a good job security look for transportation mom works at norfolk southern railway corp. and she makes 60,xxx with the better health care than 80% of the US   in short find a job in something stable and that will be here for a lifetime   TVA (tennessee valley authority) dams and lakes EPB (electric power board) electricity internet cable and phone Tennessee American Water drinking water 
those are all high tech high paying jobs



sorry for double post


----------



## Atona (Aug 25, 2010)

Senzuri Champion said:


> SORRY THAT WAS MEAN EVERYBODY
> 
> IM SORRY
> 
> ...


 
Aw. I was so happy it was said, too. :[

It's awful that THAT was the first time someone has directly spoken to me/referred to me away from a thread that I myself made, I just didn't feel like I was in a position to get defensive.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 25, 2010)

Velystord said:


> and jobs will never come back to this country as long as you can hire a sweat shop working in a factory over seas
> also if you want a good job security look for transportation mom works at norfolk southern railway corp. and she makes 60,xxx with the better health care than 80% of the US   in short find a job in something stable and that will be here for a lifetime   TVA (tennessee valley authority) dams and lakes EPB (electric power board) electricity internet cable and phone Tennessee American Water drinking water
> those are all high tech high paying jobs
> 
> ...


 
Tried that... seems, in California, at least, tech companies only hire temps.  Getting in "permanent" is unlikely, with competition for jobs so fierce.  Some time ago, I went to fill out an app.  Company was taking apps from 9am to 10am.  I arrived right at 9am, only to find 200 apps had already been taken, and they'd run out... had to stand in line till they were able to get more, and no, I didn't get called back for an interview.  That seems to be the way things are going, still.  Too many people out of work, not enough jobs to go around.  Which means the employers can be as picky as they want.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Aug 25, 2010)

Atona said:


> Aw. I was so happy it was said, too. :[
> 
> It's awful that THAT was the first time someone has directly spoken to me/referred to me away from a thread that I myself made, I just didn't feel like I was in a position to get defensive.


 
i have been here for what feels like a long time

it is a bad place


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tried that... seems, in California, at least, tech companies only hire temps.  Getting in "permanent" is unlikely, with competition for jobs so fierce.  Some time ago, I went to fill out an app.  Company was taking apps from 9am to 10am.  I arrived right at 9am, only to find 200 apps had already been taken, and they'd run out... had to stand in line till they were able to get more, and no, I didn't get called back for an interview.  That seems to be the way things are going, still.  Too many people out of work, not enough jobs to go around.  Which means the employers can be as picky as they want.


 try getting on with union pacific railroad  
by the time they are done training you they wont fire you for anything (seen in person for the last 30 years theres a signal maintainer up north of here that came to work every day atleast 15 minutes late and they kept him on)
and when they train you they spend a shitload of money on you 
only negative you are not allowed to strike or in about 45 min you will get an order from the president to go back to work or be charged with endangering a vital service to the country
Unions are allowed


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yeah, sorry to say, most likely.  But I can always hope!  And keep my eye on the want ads, fingers crossed.


 
Or maybe *use* that fucking 2nd amendment already and start the second civil war. I'll help you guys, I'm not fucking kidding. I want to be in a war. Just not the modern bullshit that stands as a pathetic excuse of a military and "combat". I mean if I survive a fucking war, I've failed the way I look at it.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Or maybe *use* that fucking 2nd amendment already and start the second civil war. I'll help you guys, I'm not fucking kidding. I want to be in a war. Just not the modern bullshit that stands as a pathetic excuse of a military and "combat". I mean if I survive a fucking war, I've failed the way I look at it.


 that reminds me i need to call my grandfather (he has enough guns to have his own militia) 
and yes the only way we would be able to back up the right to revolution is to have all the military forces and police on our side its a sad thing too
its our constitutional right to be able to have a revolution and they wont let us


----------



## Aleu (Aug 25, 2010)

Velystord said:


> buy a vaporizer


 this. Vaporizers are better. From what I've been told you have to use a ton of weed and it's a pain in the ass to make in brownies.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> this. Vaporizers are better. From what I've been told you have to use a ton of weed and it's a pain in the ass to make in brownies.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8y9BVP2e0


----------



## Aleu (Aug 26, 2010)

Velystord said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8y9BVP2e0


 Also that problem too. It gives you more of a high than smoking it.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 26, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Also that problem too. It gives you more of a high than smoking it.


 when you think your dead you are far beyond high


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 26, 2010)

Velystord said:


> its our constitutional right to be able to have a revolution and they wont let us


 
Of course they won't. They aren't just gonna keep all of their security and defenses down so that you can shoot them all up.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 26, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Of course they won't. They aren't just gonna keep all of their security and defenses down so that you can shoot them all up.


 never said shoot them but if they wont give up their position.....
by the constitution if the people demand they step down then they are required to step down though i doubt they would


wait   isnt that from a diffrent thread?


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 26, 2010)

Velystord said:


> never said shoot them but if they wont give up their position.....
> by the constitution if the people demand they step down then they are required to step down though i doubt they would


 
Yeah, by voting and stuff. 

But the only time when people start voting people out of positions are when they do something horribly wrong and abuse their position criminally.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 26, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Yeah, by voting and stuff.
> 
> But the only time when people start voting people out of positions are when they do something horribly wrong and abuse their position criminally.


 as i said 
isnt that from another thread and if you would like to discuss it you can always pm me or msn or something

not trying to be an ass or anything

also i believe wholeheartedly that at least half politicians are corrupt in some manner or another 

and back to topic 

i believe the video posted earlier says it all


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Aug 26, 2010)

Redregon said:


> yeah, there is...
> 
> and here you go!
> 
> ...


 

Ah good to see someone else who goes on grass city @_@


Oh and with vaporizers, its not quite as much as a kick than other methods and thus may not be the best bang for buck but if you've got the weed to burn go ahead.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 26, 2010)

well, if you're a medicinal user, maybe the "high" isn't something enjoyable (nessessarily) but a side-effect? 

think about it... not counting California (since they have a high rate of abuse of the MMJ systems in place) but i know of a lot of medicinal users that really don't like being high all day.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 26, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, if you're a medicinal user, maybe the "high" isn't something enjoyable (nessessarily) but a side-effect?
> 
> think about it... not counting California (since they have a high rate of abuse of the MMJ systems in place) but i know of a lot of medicinal users that really don't like being high all day.


 I know there's an alternative that doesn't have the THC but I can't, for the life of me, remember what it's called. It still has the same medicinal effects and also legal...i think..


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Aug 20, 2015)

Weed is love weed is life weed is the reason we exist and are not ded of cancers


----------



## jtrekkie (Aug 20, 2015)

No


----------



## grassfed (Aug 21, 2015)

jtrekkie said:


> No



It most certainly can, you wanna tell that to the thousands of people who are only alive today because of it? THC causes cancerous cells to go into apoptosis, a triggered cell death, while also leaving the healthy cells intact. Radiation/chemo cannot say the same, both the good and bad cells die. CBD provides a lot of pain/nausea relief but does not attack cancer cells like THC does so dont fall into the 'CBD hype', all cannabiniods are needed.

And no ones saying that you can just start smoking weed and you'll treat your cancer, smoking has nothing to do with it really. You need to be eating it, an oleoresin extract from the plant made with grain alcohol is the best tool at fighting cancer with cannabis. Oral and rectal dosing is the most effective way of getting the medicine to your body. You can smoke/vaporize and all that but dont rely on that to shrink tumors etc. 

Please just do some honest research, watch Rick Simpson's 'Run From The Cure' and make the decision yourself, don't let propaganda brainwash you into thinking the planet's oldest known medicine has no medicinal value..


----------



## jtrekkie (Aug 21, 2015)

OK, I did. There are some studies that suggest that the growth of select cells are inhibited and sometimes killed on exposure to either THC or CBD in vitro, but less than 20%, while mice given constant doses of THC had a lower occurrence of hepatocellular carcinomas. Clinical trials in humans have showed that while treatment doesn't do any harm, it does not contribute to controlling or reversing the disease, but more trails are being done. 

Unfortunately cannabis is not a cure for cancer at this time.


----------

