Posted on 12/28/2007 8:47:30 AM PST by Sir Gawain
Dec. 26, 2007 -- THC and another marijuana-derived compound slow the spread of cervical and lung cancers, test-tube studies suggest.
The new findings add to the fast-growing number of animal and cell-culture studies showing different anticancer effects for cannabinoids, chemical compounds derived from marijuana.
Cannabinoids, and sometimes marijuana itself, are currently used to lessen the nausea and pain experienced by many cancer patients. The new findings -- yet to be proven in human studies -- suggest that cannabinoids may have a direct anticancer effect.
"Cannabinoids' ... potential therapeutic benefit in the treatment of highly invasive cancers should be addressed in clinical trials," conclude Robert Ramer, PhD, and Burkhard Hinz, PhD, of the University of Rostock, Germany.
Might cannabinoids keep dangerous tumors from spreading throughout the body? Ramer and Hinz set up an experiment in which invasive cervical and lung cancer cells had make their way through a tissue-like gel. Even at very low concentrations, the marijuana compounds THC and methanandamide (MA) significantly slowed the invading cancer cells.
Doses of THC that reduce pain in cancer patients yield blood concentrations much higher than the concentrations needed to inhibit cancer invasion.
"Thus the effects of THC on cell invasion occurred at therapeutically relevant concentrations," Ramer and Hinz note.
The researchers are quick to point out that much more study is needed to find out whether these test-tube results apply to tumor growth in animals and in humans.
Ramer and Hinz report the findings in the Jan. 2, 2008 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Carolyn
90% of cronic users also exhibit learning disorders consistent with short term memory loss. Check again, I didn't say that... ;^)""where as 90% of people would recognize pot smoking as a motivation suppressing endeavor that leads many to excess and ruin."A little while ago it was "90% of the people who use it are led to excess and ruin". You seem to be stuck on 90% of something, but can't seem to decide what it is."
““If 90% of us degenerated into using it for nothing but Jerry Springer, the same way 90% of potheads compulsively degenerate in their use of dope, I’d support it.”
‘90 percent? I assume you have proof of this outlandish statement.’”
You know what they say about those who assume?
Just scan your memory and name the regular smokers who consistently use pot to charge their imagination, perform better socially, enhance their sex lives or whatever other positive thing that could be said for it that can’t also be characterised as compulsively degenerating. I can name a few who tried it and never went back, but none that didn’t also apear as underachevers that could have made much more of themselves if that energy was redirected to something better than a good buzz in the evenings.
Sure looks like you did.
90% of potheads compulsively degenerate in their use of dope
Virtually all of the former potheads I know lead productive family-oriented lives. I say “former” because most of those folks grew tired of pot or realized it killed ambition and so they quit. What percentage of the potheads I knew who “compulsively degenerated?” Oh, maybe 1 percent.
Unless you have some sort of proof otherwise, that’s the percentage I’ll go by.
I have no argument with your assessment of “former potheads”, but I spoke about potheads.
So 90% of the people who try pot become chronic, heavy users, and only 1% of those will ever quit? I think I'd like to see a source for that.
At the risk of coming off as a pr~k (that may need to chill out with a bong hit) I really want to say that being able to accurately identify the meaning of statements (and distinguish between dissimilar ones) is the foundation of clear thinking.
I know that’s not going to be well received from me, but it really is important. We all struggle to keep from seeing just what we want to see.
“So 90% of the people who try pot become chronic, heavy users, and only 1% of those will ever quit? I think I’d like to see a source for that.”
This is absurd. That’s made up from your imagination, not from something I said or implied. I’ve got to go...
It slows cancer because the cancer cells forget what they were trying to do, are no longer motivated to do anything productive, and are content sitting around contemplating the meaning of life.
90% of potheads compulsively degenerate in their use of dope
Does it mean that 90% of the people who use it will degenerate into heavy, chronic use? Or is it a definition of "pothead" based on an arbitrary percentage of people that will exhibit that behavior? Is it just some casual hyperbole thrown around for the drug war fans?
That's directly from your statements, either implicitly or explicitly. I'd be going too.
My point is that the vast majority of potheads voluntarily become former potheads. At least among the people I know.
So does B-17 (laetrile).
Slows them dead.
Ask your children/grandchildren/younger person.
and just what misery is that. A shortage of nachos?
Chances are, you probably know someone who does, even though you might not "know it".
Most of the good stuff is home grown here in the US of A. So I'm told.
Become legal.
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.