Skip to comments.
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
Science Daily ^
| 4/17/07
| American Association for Cancer Research
Posted on 04/18/2007 1:20:10 PM PDT by Teflonic
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-184 next last
To: -=SoylentSquirrel=-
Debunked by whom? The individuals that wish to “smoke” THC legally.
I’ve read both sides of the “fallacy”, and I’m suspect.
“Besides, smoking pot is fun; it’s the equivalant of the ‘50s-era pastime of drinking a few martinins when you get home from work.”
I can appreciate your freedom and desire to just have “fun” and unwind after a hard days work. But that particular type of fun which you speak of is unhealthy. Incidentally, alcohol is the number one factor in contributing to vehicle accidents and deaths on the roads today. Furthermore, its consumption is the number one cause of domestic violence in this country. Not what you’d describe as a distinguished track record.
To: This Just In
“Incidentally, alcohol is the number one factor in contributing to vehicle accidents and deaths on the roads today. Furthermore, its consumption is the number one cause of domestic violence in this country. Not what youd describe as a distinguished track record.”
Incidentally, I have several friends who argue that, for these exact reasons, we should bring back the prohibition on alcohol and legalize marijuana instead. Alcohol, from what I can tell, is FAR more dangerous; I have never, in my life, heard of a single story about anyone who became unruly and violent while they were stoned, while I’ve heard endless stories of violent and unruly drunks.
42
posted on
04/18/2007 2:24:25 PM PDT
by
jakewashere
(politically incorrect and proud of it since 1982)
To: This Just In
Debunked by whom? The individuals that wish to smoke THC legally.
By cancer patients themselves. Remember that doctors rely heavily on what their patients tell them about their treatment, except in the case of "pot", where they must be of course lying, at least according to many around here.
Marinol is a pill. If you have just had chemotherapy, many cannot ingest anything without throwing it up. By smoking it, they not only get immediate relief, the dose is much stronger than the pill can deliver. So until they make a THC inhaler, there is no substitute for smoking it.
I can appreciate your freedom and desire to just have fun and unwind after a hard days work. But that particular type of fun which you speak of is unhealthy.
So is eating a cheeseburger. I guess we know where you stand on the subject of freedom versus statism.
To: dalereed
Didnt realize that cancer tumors had a brain to distroy. Whoa dude - you need to get worked-up quick.
44
posted on
04/18/2007 2:34:11 PM PDT
by
corkoman
To: jakewashere
Your friends opinions based on the comparison are without merit. Just because alcohols effects are more violent then that of marijuana doesn’t mean that the laws should be exchanged.
Although, I can understand their point of view, the evaluation should concentrate on the drug and its purpose, effects, etc. independent of a comparison.
To: This Just In
Further proof is the fact that cancer patients can receive the same kind of relief by taking Marinol.Sorry, but that is just not true in most cases...if you are extremely nauseated from chemo, you can't keep a pill down. Been there, done that when my hubby had kidney cancer.
To: This Just In
I think you inadvertantly just proved the point that alcohol is more dangerous than pot.
Keep in mind that like alcohol, there are millions of folks who, in addition to supporting a family, paying their bills, and living an otherwise law-abiding life, like to light up a doobie now and then; these people are causing harm to no one except maybe their selves, and I see no reason to criminalize their behavior.
Maybe I should have used a different word than "fun": For me smoking pot is a relaxing way to end the day.
I do not miss work due to it, I do not rob others to feed my habit (which, BTW costs me around $40 a month), and I am opposed to any legislation that makes it easier to fall into the hands of minors.
To: microgood
A dosage taken intravenous could be an option. Not all cancer patients receive chemo.
“I guess we know where you stand on the subject of freedom versus statism.”
You obviously don’t. It is typical of you and those you represent, hence the “we”, to assume you know where individuals stand politically simply because we hold differing views on this issue. And by typical, I mean arrogant, misinformed, and ignorant.
Whether we have a centralized government or self governing states, I would not support the legalization of “recreational” drugs, although I do support the right for each state to decide what is best for its residents.
To: -=SoylentSquirrel=-
“...in addition to supporting a family, paying their bills...”
“...these people are causing harm to no one except maybe their selves...”
If this individual is incapasited or dies as a result of their drug use, they can’t very well take care of their family, or pay their bills, which will effect their loved ones.
“...and I am opposed to any legislation that makes it easier to fall into the hands of minors.”
If minors can obtain alcohol and cigarettes with relative ease(which I had done when I was a youth), they will be able to obtain, as they do, marijuana. I appreciate your view; that the legalization of marijuana should only be available to consenting adults, but you can see the frivolous attempt in doing so.
To: Teflonic
not only can it cure cancer but we can solve that pesky rope shortage.
50
posted on
04/18/2007 3:04:31 PM PDT
by
CzarNicky
(The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
To: ravingnutter
Would you and your hubby have considered intravenous injections? I hope your spouse is in remission.
To: Teflonic
They been keeping this a secret to themselves? This stuff been around YEARS!
52
posted on
04/18/2007 3:09:34 PM PDT
by
anglian
To: This Just In
A dosage taken intravenous could be an option. Not all cancer patients receive chemo.
I think I would prefer an aerosol to hundreds of needle pokes. But I hate needles.
You obviously dont. It is typical of you and those you represent, hence the we, to assume you know where individuals stand politically simply because we hold differing views on this issue. And by typical, I mean arrogant, misinformed, and ignorant.
I am not the one that advocates throwing cancer patients in jail for using a drug eases their nausea. Your position is the height of arrogance. As far as being misinformed and ignorant, you are the one that did not know the problem with trying to swallow Marinol after chemotherapy and yet you are providing recommendations to cancer patients for pain relief. Whatever.
Whether we have a centralized government or self governing states, I would not support the legalization of recreational drugs, although I do support the right for each state to decide what is best for its residents.
The state has no idea what is best for its residents. Just as I have no idea what is in your best interests, you have no idea what is in mine. That is where the phrase live and let live comes from. You say I cannot tell your political beliefs from your stand on this position but this statement by you says it all:
..I do support the right for each state to decide what is best for its residents.
My definition of the role of the state is to protect my freedom from those who would take it away.
To: dead
ROFL! You’d make a wisecrack to the devil.
To: dead; mugs99; Grampa Dave
"It also cuts down on the tumor's ability to focus and move out of it's mom's basement."Perfect!!! To say the least!!!
55
posted on
04/18/2007 5:21:14 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(CA is plagued with a GANG-GREENOUS REPELLICAN GOVERNOR!!! He's worsened the Gray Davis' MESS!!!)
To: Teflonic
Not the Devil Weed!!! If you're dying from lung cancer and you smoke a joint... YOU BELONG IN JAIL!!!
The law is the law. Period! Yada, yada, yada...
Now wait for all of the cops (and cop wannabees). Without our goofy drug laws, half of them would be collecting unemployment - and they know it.
56
posted on
04/18/2007 5:34:17 PM PDT
by
wireman
To: dead
57
posted on
04/18/2007 5:36:42 PM PDT
by
stephenjohnbanker
( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! Or Rudy/Hillary if you want to murder conservatism)
To: jdub
THC in the form of Marinol is legal. THC and marijuana are two different things in spite of what the author is trying to imply. Marinol is totally synthetic, and has nothing to to with the plant, which is why the dopers have no interest in it.
58
posted on
04/18/2007 5:57:44 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Teflonic
Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. That's an incorrect statement. Inhibiting growth by 50% is not the same as reducing size by 50%.
59
posted on
04/18/2007 6:03:25 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Teflonic
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Association for Cancer Research. Twisted, not adapted.
60
posted on
04/18/2007 6:04:13 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-184 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson