<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jedigreedo:
They could just nuke Columbia, and Mexico. IIRC they're the main places it usually comes from.

Even if it doesn't stop the flow all that much, it should be fun to watch nonetheless eh?

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wolfy:
Marijuana has approximately 4 times as many carcinogenic chemicals as cigarettes do. Were a marijuana user to smoke as much as a cigarette user, they would be at a much higher risk of getting cancer, as marijuana has a higher concentration of carcinogens and marijuana users typically breathe in more smoke and hold in their lungs for longer durations of time. However, since most marijuana users do not smoke as regularly as cigarette smokers, the chance for getting cancer from a marijuana cigarette is typically the same.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Source: victoria.indymedia.org

Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ‘74

by Raymond Cushing • Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 07:07 PM


In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

Raymond Cushing -- as reported by Jon Roland, wrote the article, “Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ‘74,” provided herein as received.

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects. Most Americans don’t know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on February 29, 2000.

The ominous part is that this isn’t the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies , who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of Nature Medicine that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC.

“All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats.” The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats’ brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

“Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid treatment ended.”

Guzman’s investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a “petri dish” experiment that didn’t involve live subjects.)

In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn’t cite the 1974 Virginia investigation. “I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible.” Guzman said.

In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, “We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared.” Guzman provided the title of his work -- “Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids”, an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the UC medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

The summary of the Virginia study begins, “Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)” -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. “Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.” The 1975 journal article doesn’t mention breast cancer tumors, which featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study -- in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, “Cancer Curb Is Studied,” it read in part:

“The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered.” The researchers “found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.” Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:


“It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution (lastimosa evolution) of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again ‘draw back the veil’ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration.”

News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on February 29 [2000] with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors."
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jedigreedo:
They could just nuke Columbia, and Mexico. IIRC they're the main places it usually comes from.

Even if it doesn't stop the flow all that much, it should be fun to watch nonetheless eh?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gandalf1120:
Oh geez not another "omg legalize!!11" fanatic. When will the world learn that DRUGS ARE BAD!

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Spork:
I think we was being sarcastic, Raoul. At least I hope he was

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Raoul Duke:
Radioactivity in tabacco crops causes 90%cancer... not carginogens.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Marijuana vs. Tobacco
It's true that both marijuana and tobacco contain toxic chemicals such as tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. But marijuana smoke has more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco. As stated before, it contains more than 400 harmful chemicals, which includes cancer-causing carcinogens. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same carcinogens and toxic chemicals as tobacco, but in higher concentrations. The amount of marijuana smoke inhaled per puff is two thirds larger than a typical puff of a tobacco cigarette. The reason behind this is that marijuana is smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smoke is inhaled deeper into the lungs, and is held there up to four times as long. These long drags force the rapid absorption THC by the lungs, the active ingredient in marijuana. As a result, the toxic chemicals in marijuana smoke can do much more damage to the lungs than cigarette smoke.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Þ Recent research indicates that marijuana may play an important role in respiratory tract cancer. The tar phase of marijuana smoke contains 50 percent more of some carcinogenic agents that tobacco smoke.

Þ One marijuana cigarette deposits four times as much tar in the lungs as one tobacco cigarette, which amplifies the exposure of the lungs to carcinogens.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways(10).</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase(12). A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Marijuana use has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">One joint deposits four times as much cancer-causing tars in the smoker's airways as does tobacco smoke. Smoking three to five joints a week is equal in harmful effects to smoking 16 cigarettes daily. Smoking one joint a day is equal to a pack of cigarettes daily. Three joints smoked per week for three to six months carries the same probability of developing lung cancer as smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for 20 to 30 years.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Because the pot smoker tends to breathe in the smoke more deeply and hold it longer than the tobacco user, greater harm is done to the lungs. Five times as much carbon monoxide (associated with coronary diseases) is inhaled in marijuana smoke as in tobacco smoke.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">4.5 million dollars down the drain...and that's just a fraction of the disgusting amount of money WASTED on the drug war every year.

In 2003, about 20 BILLION dollars was spent on the war on drugs...That's about 600 dollars a second.

We are less then 20 days into the year 2004 and they have already spent over 2 billion dollars.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Matthew Pate:
If we legalise murder crime will go way down!

Marijuana stinks and it turns its users into frothing idiots who suffer from severe personality swings. Plus they're really boring when they're on it. Did I mention it stinks? Christ, it's awful.

Saying it's better than tobacco is like saying a punch in the groin is better than having your face repeatedly beaten with an exercise bike; neither is a particularly beneficial endeavour.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Ok, so the government is running anti-drug (or rather, anti-pot ads) during the superbowl, at no modest price of 4.5 million dollars!

WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!!!!
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Freelancer:
What's your point? I mean, really.. what do you expect them to do? Just stop enforcing drug laws? Where do they draw the line? heroin? LSD? WHERE? Why not just disband the entire police force? After all, it costs too much!

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">[On Afghanistan] World's largest producer of opium; cultivation of opium poppy - used to make heroin - expanded to 30,750 hectares in 2002, despite eradication; potential opium production of 1,278 metric tons; source of hashish; many narcotics-processing labs throughout the country; drug trade source of instability and some government groups profit from the trade; 80-90% of the heroin consumed in Europe comes from Afghan opium; vulnerable to narcotics money laundering through the hawala system

-CIA World Factbook </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Ok, so the government is running anti-drug (or rather, anti-pot ads) during the superbowl, at no modest price of 4.5 million dollars!</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Here here. My sister has become a hardcore marijuana user, and has since all but dropped out of school. Her attention span is staggeringly small. She can't even sit and watch a 90 minute movie without leaving the room literally 7 times to find something else to do. She is a failure as a human being.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by GHORG:

Quote:

And why do they always use joints in these studies?... I don't know about the US, but most people over here use buckets/bongs.

I've heard hash and vaporizers reduce the amount of "crap" you get in your lungs, but that's just what I've heard from mates, not scientific evidence... Anyone know anything about that?

</font>