everything you post is hearsay, and im tempted to believe you dont even know what ur saying as you regurgitate my posts back at me.
the studies are irrelevant. tumor invasiveness and growth follows the same pathways as normal cells. in fact, it its the body's mechanisms for keeping you alive which nurtures the tumor. smoking some weed will not affect this in the body. you just dont understand the nature of cancer. maybe you need to hop in on a study, speak with, and consent over 50 people, and watch all but 3 die over the next 2 years despite the best medical treatment. and then we wonder why we cant get their tumor cultures to grow in the lab..... the body does everything it can to keep all of its cells living, including tumor cells. grandma has cancer so i fix her up a nice bong. now, not only is grandma still going to die, but shes also now high. you guys are brilliant
you gotta realize that most tumor types, if taken out of the context of the body, are comprised of very functionally healthy cells. they are able to grow and multiply. thats all you need for establishing cell health (this isnt true for some high grade tumors, but thats a different issue). the only thing differentiating them is that genetically they are on thin ice and about to get axed. apoptosis is the accepted way of treating tumors. because they are 99.999999999% identical to normal cells, the only thing we got is the chance to distrupt them genetically and by definition anything that affects a tumor cell negatively will affect normal tissue negatively as well.
< Message edited by SpecterGT260 -- 4/28/2008 8:10:17 AM >
Team MF Member #999 Posts: 3172
Joined: 5/27/2006 From: no Status: offline
ummm
having cancer and being high > having cancer and not being high.
_____________________________
ORIGINAL: MustangMan628
V-6 is for real drivers. Go buy a Jetta if you want gas mileage and a chicks car. Buy a V-8 Mustang if you have no driving ability and need the extra horsepower to compensate and feel like you''''''''re fast.
you cannot fix a tumor. these cells have lost the ability to regulate themselves. we have a family in one of our studies which has competely lost the p53 gene. all of them are dying of various types of primary and metastatic disease. anything you do other than kill the cells is a weak ass stall.
you wont even have extra time. its a myth. you cant claim this until there has been a longevity study with actual patients. i have yet to see one even worth reading. you will just die, just with the munchies. i dont know what the effect of the cannabinoids is on the rest of the body but i can ensure you that they are not some magic cancer-only compound. if they truely do affect cell migration, they will affect that pathway for all areas of the body. this is not good. especially if dealing with high enough concentrations to actually make a measurable difference.
this is why i made the distinction "in vitro". these studies are performed on petri dishes, and the only thing i have to say is OF COURSE the growth slowed. you introduced a forgein compound in relative high concentration. it will do one of 2 things, slow it down, or speed it up. this does not in any way mean you affected the necessary pathways. there is a very good chance the cells are just unable to grow in the new conditions. the study linked earlier does no assays to really assess change. they do cell count which in this context is almost completely meaningless.
the reason an "in vivo" study is also pointless: we cannot yet accurately determine tumor size with real accuracy within the body. CT's and MRI's give us the basic idea, but they sometimes have error associated with them in terms of liters, especially in the algorithmic software out there. i know of a few joint efforts between hospitals and engineering labs to come up with software which will reliably outline and measure a tumor from MRI. they have a while to go before they even come close. even at resection its assumed everyone knows there is an appreciable amount of healthy tissue that was harvested OR that there is an appreciable amount of tumor that was left behind. you really cant let some Joe toke up and then scan him in a couple months and say "look, the weed helps!"
Well, this is all just a bunch of crap then. Isn't this how all these new drugs are invented...just like the diseases that they supposedly "treat"? They seem to have more side affects than they do benefits anyways. It was my understanding that this is the point to the weed. It isn't a cure but an aide for the treatments/ side affects, to make it bearable. It does help with the migranes and the nausousness.
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4/3/2004 From: Louisville, Ky Status: offline
OK OK OK there are some scientifically CONTROVERSIAL aspects of weed and cancer. drop it. there is no SOLID study out yet.
Perhaps after this last generation of old fogies dies off , we can vote weed in. I for one think its to most ridiculous thing ever when cops stop pot smokers as if they are armed burglars. Im allow to go eat at McDs and destroy my body , why not smoke what I want? there is no difference.
_____________________________
Don''''t be too proud of this technological terror you''''ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of Big Oil.
there are plenty of non toxic ways to treat those symptoms, and ways that are actually far more effective. and yes, weed smoke is toxic, just like inhaling any type of smoke is.
here is part one of the movie "in pot we trust" the whole thing is available on youtube any skeptic of marijuana having valid medicinal value has probably NEVER spoken, face to face, with somebody that uses it for their condition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9utVHPMm8
_____________________________
it's psychosomatic. you need a lobotomy. ill get a saw. -calvin
Posts: 4127
Joined: 4/6/2005 From: West Los Angeles Status: offline
well, consider that almost every hardcore drug addict in the country started getting high with pot... what part of "gateway drug" doesn't sound right?
I'm all for medicinal marijuana use, but the last thing the government needs is young kids smoking pot. We have enough trouble with them getting drunk already! Many posts here show that!
But before those addicts smoked up they probably had a cup of coffee or a can of soda. And before that they probably had sugar laden candies every day.
meh.. im not really pro legalization but im not against those who get high randomely.. its like i dont mind the ppl that get drunk randomely.. i honestly think i only know a handful of peiople that DONT get high.. and some of them yes are bums that will prob never better themselves but others work their asses off.. and ive even heard one say 'i dont know how people get stoned and go do manual labor' (he installs carpet).. just like i dont see how people get drunk and do that shyt.. if i start bustin my ass after drinkin a decent bit i hurl..
the only reason i would really be against legalization is because with all the retards and careless people already in the world i think it would just add to it with child situations.. people are careless enough with smoking around children and the last thing they need is children or babies catching contacts.. i had the unfortunateness of going to visit my bf at a friends house and they had baggies everywhere and i remember their 3 y/o pick up a handfull and shove it in her mouth and the mom instantly cleaned her mouth out and whipped her and sent her to bed.. it took everything in me to not instantly leave and call the police.. a few days later their house got raided anyways and they were taken to jail for coke and whatever else, which made me very happy.. but in the same its like alcoholics and their children.. but people tend to get easily pissed off when drunk so kids get beaten for no reason..
*sigh* i just really hate people that cant control themselves..
/rant
_____________________________
98' GT. nothin special
quote:
ORIGINAL: redass02gt I want to be an asshole doctor... but instead I'm stuck being an asshole moderator on the internet
the first step to make cannabis illegal was made in 1937 with the passage of the marihuana tax act. do a google search of this and youll come up with plenty of reading. this caught many farmers by surprise, because they found out that the HUGE cash crop "hemp" was actually this newfangled word "marihuana," which was illegal. the magazine popular mechanics hadnt heard the news yet, and in 38 they published this article talking about the new billion dollar cash crop. and that is "billion" in 1938 terms.- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/popmech1.htm
quote:
The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry it amounts to over $1,000,000,000 a year, and of that eighty per cent is imported. But hemp will produce every grade of paper, and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average pulp land.
the tax act was deemed unconstitutional in 69 when timothy leary challenged it- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leary_v._United_States and that led to the system that is currently in place today: the controlled substances act, which placed marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. this is the category where the substances have ABSOLUTELY no medical value(see links posted above). congress recognized that they did not know enough about pot at this time so as to justify it being a schedule 1 substance. so they created a presidential commission(where nixon would get to appoint most of the reviewers) to validate its stance on the list. nixon tried, he put as many top dog anti drug warriors as he could find on the case. they went to work, and did thorough work indeed. this is the shafer commission- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm . in the end, they concluded that...
quote:
"[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. … It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance." and went on to suggest legalization or at least decriminalization.
any questions¿ did i miss anything¿
oh yes! vaporization! smoke is indeed very toxic. i absolutely do not recommend smoking anything to anyone(unless it is simply not an option) luckily for modern day tokers, there is a very smokeless way to enjoy getting high. it is called vaporization. this is where heat is applied to the herb that is BELOW combustable temps, but at or above that of the boiling point of thc and other cannabinoids. this allows quick(the downside of eating cannabis) and easy delivery of the cannabiniods in a familiar fashion to what people are already used to. the last part of this vid has a vaporizer in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGJVdFO7l7Q
_____________________________
it's psychosomatic. you need a lobotomy. ill get a saw. -calvin
But before those addicts smoked up they probably had a cup of coffee or a can of soda. And before that they probably had sugar laden candies every day.
See what I'm getting at?
as ive said time and time again, on this and many other forums. sugar, advil/tylenol and caffeine are the three biggest gateway drugs. tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are far down the list.
_____________________________
it's psychosomatic. you need a lobotomy. ill get a saw. -calvin
seriously, im trying to read this thread, and your retardedness just keeps grabbing my neck and punching me in the face. quit it.
i only wish it would grab you in the neck and do just that. if we could only be so lucky.
it takes approximately zero intelligence to copy and paste links and propaganda. ive gone over this enough times with you, your links and obscure studies are meaningless. i do this for a living and a means to pay my way through school. ur a moron
any skeptic of marijuana having valid medicinal value has probably NEVER spoken, face to face, with somebody that uses it for their condition.
and Jenny McCarthy is the new face of autism treatment. antidepressant impact is only marginally better than placebo. and there are people who swear up and down that chiropractors are just crooks. what exactly is your point? having an illness in no way, shape, and/or form makes you an expert. again, moron
Printable Version
RE: Why is weed illegal?? - 
