Cancer? Smoke a joint! (Or, eat a brownie)

First, should we smoke pot? Hell yeah! It's fun, therapeutic, relaxing, pain relieving, and according to research at the NIH it doesn't cause cancer...

How about curing it? Well...

Lung cancer growth stopped, and in some cases reversed... Harvard 2007 study

Colon cancer? Smoke a joint (I guess you could try an colonic with THC oil, but... ew!) University of Texas, Houston study

There are other studies that show reduction of cell growth and reverse of tumor growth in other serious cancers, also. Including testicular, cervical, ovarian, pancreatic, and etc. I'd look more, but I haven't smoked yet this morning, and have lost interest in google and reading research papers.

Edit: There's a lot of evidence out there! We just need to be able to get the Ok for human testing. Marijauana may cure cancer!

But why start a new thread?

isnt a large portion of medical marijuana users cancer sufferers? with such a large group there should be statistical evidence that the MM users are dying less than non mm users especially as you have states with no MM use should be a piece of cake to get those numbers

if of course there are no statistical differences between a MM state and a non MM state then this clearly has no merit

Cannibis can indeed cure cancer.

[video=youtube;1qG_ZWs04es]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es&feature=results_main&playnext= 1&list=PLA500490AC8FD42DA[/video]

GreatwhiteNorth said:

Cannibis can indeed cure cancer.

[video=youtube;1qG_ZWs04es]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es&feature=results_main&playnext= 1&list=PLA500490AC8FD42DA[/video]

Click to expand...

i do hope you havent been recommending that quack to anyone you know

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/26/stanislaw-burzynskis-public-record/

This is why I posted it in a new thread, I didn't want to lend even the appearance of credence to quack doctors, I tried to only put in medically backed studies or summaries of studies conducted by universities that have large and historically unbiased medical research projects, and who receive federal funding for research projects. A research project is more likely to bias towards their major source of contributions than towards tenuous evidence.

ginjawarrior said:

isnt a large portion of medical marijuana users cancer sufferers? with such a large group there should be statistical evidence that the MM users are dying less than non mm users especially as you have states with no MM use should be a piece of cake to get those numbers

if of course there are no statistical differences between a MM state and a non MM state then this clearly has no merit

Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. We have to figure first, do states that have MM laws, necessarily also have more smokers of cannabis?

ginjawarrior said:

isnt a large portion of medical marijuana users cancer sufferers? with such a large group there should be statistical evidence that the MM users are dying less than non mm users especially as you have states with no MM use should be a piece of cake to get those numbers

if of course there are no statistical differences between a MM state and a non MM state then this clearly has no merit

Click to expand...

Or they are simultaneously taking poisons which counteract any benefit the MJ might provide. MJ relies on the immune system (which is weakened significantly during most conventional therapy) to do some of it's dirty work as well at times. It acts like a marker for your immune system saying this cell here is bad. It's actually got a few different avenues though, which makes it very very interesting.

I have little doubt that big pharma knows that MJ is the future of medicine (not just cancer research) and as a result is working hard to synthesize all the compounds known to occur so they can be patented and sold.

minnesmoker said:

This is why I posted it in a new thread, I didn't want to lend even the appearance of credence to quack doctors, I tried to only put in medically backed studies or summaries of studies conducted by universities that have large and historically unbiased medical research projects, and who receive federal funding for research projects. A research project is more likely to bias towards their major source of contributions than towards tenuous evidence.

Click to expand...

OK, from a link from your article, then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers

ScienceDaily (Jan. 23, 200 — A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers


A condition often caused by exposure to toxic chemicals or long-term exposure to tobacco smoke, bullous lung disease (also known as bullae) is a condition where air trapped in the lungs causes obstruction to breathing and eventual destruction of the lungs.

At present, about 10% of young adults and 1% of the adult population smoke marijuana regularly. Researchers find that the mean age of marijuana-smoking patients with lung problems was 41, as opposed to the average age of 65 years for tobacco-smoking patients.

Click to expand...

Hey, IMO smoking is probably not a good idea especially if you have cancer. I think in time smoking will become a thing of the past as we can still enjoy the benefits of MJ with tea and edibles while eliminating the negative effects on our lungs. Why compromise our lungs when you we are constantly being bombarded by carcinogens to begin with. Our environment is so damn polluted that we should be doing everything in our power to not compound the effect. I'm not saying that smoking bud is a death sentence but we can't deny that it compromises our already stressed immune systems. I quit smoking cigs after about 15 years and I'm just going on two years. I'm damn proud to say that I kicked a habit that is the equivalent to crack which I wish I had never started. Weed on the other had was therapeutic for me and I don't believe for one minute that it is anywhere near as toxic as cigs but I'm not prepared to say that it will not compromise lung function over an extended period of time. I recently quit bud as well...been two weeks now but had it not been for the bud I can honestly say I would never have quit the cigarettes. Having said this, COPD(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or cancer is not something anyone should have to go through especially when it can be prevented. It will take time to transition into a society where smoking is not encouraged by the tobacco and Government COCKSUCKERS alike but for now they are quite content with killing us slowly, while taxing us and making money of the meds needed once cancer takes over.

Nope. Smoking it, allows the healing to begin in the lungs. Healing that is needed for the carcinogens.

Just made a batch of extreme potent brownies, just 1" square will get me thoroughly baked for at least a few hours and the resulting state afterwards will keep me gooned for the better part of the day, and I will sleep with amazing dreams too.

Wish you were MY neighbor! Haven't made brownies or other goods in a while -- eating is definitely healthier than smoking.

i posted a thread like this before and politically correct trolls shot it down, is it agreed upon that bud kills cancer now or do i need to cure somebody and post that? seriously i know someone with brain cancer for 20 years and that hes prob gonna have it a while longer, its a slow growing cancer so i could manage it assuming MJ actually works. although i dont think he will want to eat something i made from solvents and deff wont smoke n eat buds.

DoctorSmoke said:

i posted a thread like this before and politically correct trolls shot it down, is it agreed upon that bud kills cancer now or do i need to cure somebody and post that? seriously i know someone with brain cancer for 20 years and that hes prob gonna have it a while longer, its a slow growing cancer so i could manage it assuming MJ actually works. although i dont think he will want to eat something i made from solvents and deff wont smoke n eat buds.

Click to expand...

If we agree with you it doesn't matter. Why would you care? What matters is evidence. So, by all means, cure a study group in a way that is statistically significant. Then let's discuss your research techniques, your double blind precautions, your control groups, your mathematical consolations.

I don't doubt your intent or will. You simply lack the resources and federal permission to experiment with human trials. It's a big boat we are all in.