Pot not a major cancer risk: report

Yahoo! News ^ | Wed Oct 26,12:29 PM ET | Amy Norton

[libertyman]

Whatever, Robert....ROTFLMAO!!!

I've wondered what's happened to you lately. It's been a long time since Mr. Drug Warrior has graced these pages.

[Pearls Before Swine]

What do you mean? It's actually used as propaganda to get college kids to smoke dope.

That wasn't its original intent, was it?

[winston2]

Moonman62, he's willing to risk arrest, incarceration, a large fine, legal bills, his health, his job, his family, his house, the respect of his children, his standing in the community ... but he's not addicted.

If my memory of U.S. history serves me - there were a few thousand Patriots who were "willing to risk arrest, incarceration, a large fine, legal bills, his health, his job, his family, his house, the respect of his children, his standing in the community ..." -for freedom. I choose to exercise the freedom to alter my mood with the ingestion of cannabis. What say you about my freedom?

Do you have a freedom that is under threat? I'll help you fight for it and not belittle you for your choice, unless it violates the freedoms of others.

[winston2]

it's a stoner's classic!

Is it as good as Harold and Kumar go to White Castle?

If you've only got two hours to learn about marijuana - this is the item.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

Consider this a documentary for those who inhaled. Ron Mann's playful portrait of marijuana in America is less a social history than an examination of the government's systematic seven-decade campaign to demonize the devil's weed: the conspiracy against cannabis! Through government documents, period newsreels, and clips from hysterical educational scare films and campy overheated features (like High on the Range and the cult classic Reefer Madness), Mann reveals a systematic policy of misinformation to (he argues) justify the billions spent on the losing war on drugs. Well researched if one-sided and occasionally questionable in its own assertions (aren't there any side effects to this wonder weed?), this witty history lesson is charged with raucous energy and a satirical slant. Mann and his easygoing narrator Woody Harrelson may be preaching to the converted, but it's a hilarious sermon. Pass the munchies! --Sean Axmaker

Description

Grass, narrated by actor/activist Woody Harrelson, takes a highly spirited and innovative look into one of America's most deeply rooted cultural myths: the evils of "pot", "cannabis", "weed", "dubich", "doobie", "shrub", or whatever man. From the story of America's first drug czar, to the absurd scare tactics behind propaganda films like Reefer Madness, and Marijuana: Threat or Menace, director Ron Mann (Comic Book Confidential, Twist) poignantly and humorously exposes the social, political and economic facts behind this enduring weed, and the extent to which it has profoundly shaped our culture.

[rasblue]

Check off another reason why a personal responsibility freedom infringment should be reversed

[robertpaulsen]

"I choose to exercise the freedom to alter my mood with the ingestion of cannabis. What say you about my freedom?"

I'll quote one of your patriots:

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

[winston2]

I'll quote one of your patriots:

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."

-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

Ah - We are at the very crux of the debate over whether society should allow marijuana use - and- it hinges on whether it involves "dangers which the society chooses to avoid". Does marijuana use cause excessive dangers? Were the laws against it's use made based upon real dangers -or- as I argue -the laws were based upon lies and the war against marijuana users the real danger to our society?

How many deaths can be proved to have been caused by the ingesting of cannabis? I know of not one.

?How many acts of violence can be attributed to the affects of cannabis? I know of none.

Maybe we need some laws banning the activities listed below:

The Most Common Activities that Lead to Emergency Room Visits

1. Baseball/softball 404,000

2. Dog bites 334,000

3. Playground 267,000

4. ATV's, mopeds 125,000

5. Volleyball 98,000

6. In-line skating 76,000

7. Horseback riding 71,000

8. Baby walkers 28,000

9. Skateboards 25,000

Our "laws" since roe vs. wade "allow" abortion of unwanted unborn children which makes it very dangerous to be a "unwanted fetus". Aren't "our laws" wonderful (not). We still don't have a "perfect union".

Oh - another voice from the revolutionaries in our national past -

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."

--President George Washington, 1794 Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp

[robertpaulsen]

"Does marijuana use cause excessive dangers?

Excessive? What's with "excessive dangers"? Society chooses to avoid the dangers of marijuana. Too bad for you.

"Were the laws against it's use made based upon real dangers"

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was based on real dangers (The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people). That's the current law.

"Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp"

Ooooh, they grew hemp. Hey! They owned slaves, too. What's your point?

[winston2]

Ooooh, they grew hemp. Hey! They owned slaves, too. What's your point?

My point is that there can be laws made that are not good for one reason or another- In the case of the laws against marijuana use- the laws are based on racism and lies fabricated by our own federal government.

I am curious about why you didn't address my comments about roe vs. wade. Is that a good law?

[robertpaulsen]

"the laws are based on racism"

That's a bold claim. Explain how the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (our current law) is based on racism.

"I am curious about why you didn't address my comments about roe vs. wade."

Because this is a thread about marijuana and cancer.

[winston2]

"the laws are based on racism" - (winston2)

That's a bold claim. Explain how the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (our current law) is based on racism.

Right-

In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was passed, effectively prohibiting possession or use of marijuana. It was claimed to be needed to oversee and coordinate existing state law concerning marijuana.

The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." ";Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

";Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

HARRY J. ANSLINGER "The Father of the Drug War"

"I am curious about why you didn't address my comments about roe vs. wade." (winston2)

Because this is a thread about marijuana and cancer.

Oh - I see - You can mention that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves and I must assume that you consider that within the relevance of this discussion but my mention of roe vs. wade is not. There is a word for that kind of logic.

Just for you - I'll speak a bit more in general -

Is it possible that there are laws on the books in the United States that are wrong or should be abolished?

[robertpaulsen]

"In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was passed ..."

WTF does this have to do with current law?

I'll ask you one more time, explain how the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (our current law) is based on racism.

[winston2]

"In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was passed ..." WTF does this have to do with current law?

I'll ask you one more time, explain how the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (our current law) is based on racism.

Sorry to have gotten you out of your comfort zone - but I don't remember stating that the 1970 law you are referring to had anything to do with racism - but the laws passed in 1937 against marijuana use had a lot to do with racism.

[winston2]

(from article)Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cool information! I'm feeling better already.

[robertpaulsen]

"but the laws passed in 1937 against marijuana use had a lot to do with racism."

You said, "the laws are based on racism". You did NOT say the laws were based on racism.

What is it going to be? And, if the laws were based on racism, I'll ask again, what does that have to do with our current laws?

[winston2]

"but the laws passed in 1937 against marijuana use had a lot to do with racism."(winston2)

You said, "the laws are based on racism". You did NOT say the laws were based on racism.

What is it going to be? And, if the laws were based on racism, I'll ask again, what does that have to do with our current laws?

It's real simple. - Our less than perfect federal government under the misguidance of one Harry Anslinger started a war against marijuana users who (at the time of 1937) were mostly non-white and easily vilified. The war on marijuana users in 1937 as is the case today were not violent, theft prone, or any other danger to society - but rather they were groups that the white politicians wished to give some hell to. Our misguided laws against marijuana users should be ended. The nation as a whole would benefit socially, financially and would see a reduction of crime.

[robertpaulsen]

"Our misguided laws against marijuana users should be ended"

Our misguided laws have ended. They've been replaced with laws that are very guided.

[winston2]

Our misguided laws have ended. They've been replaced with laws that are very guided.

People Arrested for Cannabis Law Offenses this Year In 2002, 45.3 percent of the 1,538,813 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 697,082. Of those, 613,986 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is a slight decrease from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone. Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate over the use of cannabis in medicine is highly controversial and emotive.

Supporters of the drug claim it has wide-ranging benefits, but opponents of legalisation say it is a potentially dangerous substance that can actually damage health.

There is scientific evidence to suggest that cannabis may be useful in treating a wide range of conditions.

And wide-scale trials testing the safety and efficacy of cannabis extracts are currently underway in the UK and elsewhere.

For instance, cannabis appears to be able to help reduce the side effects of chemotherapy treatment given to cancer patients.

The drugs used to treat cancer are among the most powerful, and most toxic, chemicals used in medicine. They produce unpleasant side effects, such as days or weeks of vomiting and nausea after each treatment

. Cannabis is an anti-emetic, a drug that relieves nausea and allows patients to eat and live normally.

Extracts also seem to benefit patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, stopping muscle spasms, and reducing tremors.

In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral use of dronabinol, a cannabis derivative, for people with Aids.

There is evidence that cannabis may stimulate the appetites of Aids patients with wasting disease.

It may also help relieve the pain of menstrual cramps and childbirth.

Campaigners claim the drug is useful in treating depression and other mood disorders.

Cannabis analogues have been shown to prevent seizures in epileptic patients when given in combination with prescription drugs.

The drug can also help in the treatment of patients suffering from glaucoma, one of the commonest causes of blindness, by reducing fluid pressure in the eye.

Claims have also been made for its use in treating asthma, strokes, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, alcoholism and insomnia.

However, opponents of the use of cannabis point to the fact that it damages the ability to concentrate.

There are other side effects of the drug, but they vary considerably and are highly unpredictable, partly because cannabis has more than 400 active ingredients.

A report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recommended the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.(snip)

The debate over the use of cannabis in medicine is highly controversial and emotive.

[robertpaulsen]

The debate over the use of cannabis smoked marijuana in medicine is highly controversial and emotive one-sided. No major medical organization supports smoked marijuana as medicine. Period.