Slashdot Mirror
Cannabis Compound Said To "Halt Cancer"
h.ross.perot informs us of research out of the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute suggesting that a compound found in cannabis may stop breast cancer from metastasizing. Cannabidiol, or CBD, could develop into a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy some years down the road, if animal and human trials bear out its effectiveness. The article notes that smoking cannabis will not deliver significant quantities of CBD.
Maybe this will do the trick then.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
They weren't smoking enough.
Well, thats *exactly* what my dealer used to say to me!
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
Human trials!
...
Too bad I don't have breasts
Have you ever stopped breast cancer from metastasizing...on weed???
Woo! Woo! Get on to the bandwagon fast. Kabul is going to be the Cancer Cure Capital of the World!!!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
that would make you plant or mineral. And I am guessing you are a pussy willow.
"The article notes that smoking cannabis will not deliver significant quantities of CBD."
They haven't seen how much I can smoke...
There... fixed it for them.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Um, using a cannabis-derived compound isn't an alternative to chemotherapy, it is chemotherapy, which literally means "treatment with chemicals." Just because a bunch of people have screwed up the meaning of the word like they did with 'hacker' vs. 'cracker', that doesn't make it right.
My blog
My mom had breast cancer several years ago. The treatments are just horrible, but I'm thankful she's still with us. It seems however that once a year we hear about some potential breakthrough or another. Well, with the truckloads of donations going to 'breast cancer research', I'm getting a little sick of hearing about 'potential' breakthroughs. I want something we can start using right now. It's hard to be patient when people you care about are sick or dying. I hope some of these possibilities pan out soon.
Kabul, shlabool
No cancer save
Head southeast, fool:
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
THC or Tetrahydrocannabinol would certainly have cannabidiol as part of its compound. Does it break down into cannabinol after time? THC is certainly the compound that gets you high.
They say that smoking it would not yield much cannabinol. What of long time marijuana users, surely they would have build up cannabinol in their bodies.
The article notes that smoking cannabis will not deliver significant quantities of CBD.
Actually, you can get CBD from smoking cannabis, but most cannabis is optimized for the best high (most abount of THC).
CBD is one of the two lesser psychoactive chemicals (CBN is the other) that THC breaks down to in the late life cycle of the cannabis plant. Most growers harvest when the plant is "ripe", when it has the most THC. If you wait a week or two after the peek harvest time, the THC will break down and have a higher percentage of CBD and CBN and a lesser percentage of THC.
Help! I've fallen in a karma hole and I can't get up!
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6947
THC selectively decreases the proliferation of malignant cells and induces cell death in human GBM cell lines. Healthy cells in the study were unaffected by THC administration.
Separate preclinical studies indicate that cannabinoids and endocannabinoids can stave off tumor progression and trigger cell death in other cancer cell lines, including breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, colectoral carcinoma, skin carcinoma, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
You can't take the sky from me...
--Cancer free since 1998.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
And stop breast cancer at the same time?
I don't care what you do, but until there is a viable way to get all the positive herbal healing from it, don't sound the "smoke weed to cure [blah]" horns. It was listed by Hypocrates as a cure-all.
It was prescribed by Queen Victoria's doctor.
It was then made illegal under false pretenses, kept illegal "pending review", and kept illegal under new false pretenses once the scientific review proved it shouldn't be illegal. No honest, free-thinking, educated person wants this to be illegal.
You can't take the sky from me...
In the end it's still used mostly for getting high ... and that's a bad thing?
You can also eat it, add the oil to drinks or use a volcano http://www.gotvape.com/store/Volcano_Vaporizer.php to make it a lot safer.
Besides, smoking it is probably still safer than eating at macdonalds.
The article notes that smoking cannabis will not deliver significant quantities of CBD.
Yeah, right. You probably said this just to keep the FEDS off your back. I mean after all, we cannot have research show that smoking pot is even in the remotest good for you. The status quo multi million dollar drug enforcement empire need to be kept in place.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
... but it does get the cancer to mellow out and be cool and stop causing so many hassles.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Cuban medicine has shown for years that mother nature provides all kinds of wonderful molecules for free. They even have a bio-version of Viagra. Problem is these things are not patentable. So a large medicinal company has to spend tons of money on trials and FDA approval, and the very next day half a dozen competitors can throw a "me too" version on the market without incurring those costs. Sorry for you if you have cancer, but don't hold your breath 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
I can't think of a single reason why it should be a crime to grow & smoke.
A recent scientific study proved that it is not a so-called "gateway drug" that leads to e.g. heroin abuse.
George Washington grew it on his farm, what could be more American than that?
In the bible _kana_bith_ (cannabis) is mentioned as a component of the sacred incense that was burned in the temple. Shouldn't freedom of religion protect people's right to grow it?
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
This study is quite obviously flawed. Cannabis, otherwise known as marijuana, is bad. It's just bad! Taking it is wrong! People who take marijuana are bad people.
Marijuana cannot be used to stop cancer. Stopping cancer is good, and marijuana is bad; therefore marijuana cannot logically be used to stop cancer. It's a basic fact!
Why are you promoting the use of this evil drug, when you know that it can only be used for bad not for good. Do you want children to smoke marijuana, and destroy their lives? Do you want them to commit murder and rape so they can feed their evil habits? Do you want them to think that bad things are good? That's just wrong!
We need to defend our children and society from the scourge of drugs. Breast cancer is bad, but that does not mean we should use evil to fight it. Instead, I propose setting up a breast cancer awareness group where people can discuss how breast cancer has affected their lives. That's a real solution to this problem.
We can hold meetings at the local bar, so people have a few drinks and a smoke afterwards.
May the Maths Be with you!
"The article notes that smoking cannabis will not deliver significant quantities of CBD."
What if you were to smoke hemp?
CBD is believed to be the compound in pot responsible for the sedative effect, as opposed to THC, which is responsible for the "mind expanding" psychedelic effects. High levels of CBD are common in strains grown for fiber or seed, which are not particularly fun to smoke. At best, you just get tired. At worst, you cough up a lung....:)
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Or at least manually link to the revision that you're posting, that way you at least know you're posting what you intended to post. Click on History, then the first date listed is a link to the current revision - but a permalink to THAT specific revision, so it won't link to any newer revisions.
Perhaps eating it will help.
BTW, anyone can get breast cancer. It doesn't have to do with boobs, it has to do with estrogen.
Guys and gals have both estrogen and testosterone.
So guys too might be able to benefit by eating magic brownies as well. Just do not eat too many and call 911 (especially if you are a cop.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Basically everyone I've known who has died, has died of cancer. It drives me crazy that we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to avenge the deaths of 3,000 people, while under four billion is spent on fighting cancer, which kills half a million people each year. It reminds me again how terrible people are at estimating risk.
References:
NCI budget
Cost of Iraq war
cancer deaths
Dear DEA,
Please put down your handcuffs and assault rifles and step away from the college student with dreadlocks. Keeping marijuana in the same schedule as cocaine and heroin is a crime against those who will benefit from its effective use as medical treatment.
Love,
hoto0301
I don't think anyone has said it should be illegal. I'm just tired of it being presented as a snake oil cure for everything when it isn't.
In the case of MS they found that yes it helped with pain but over time it worsened some symptoms such as balance and cognitive skills. I'm glad we're looking at herbal and holistic compounds for cures but I'm tired of a "cure" being offered when it really isn't.
Cue the tin foil hats about how this is a conspiracy from the government/Big Pharms.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Ah, I know my day is off to a good start when I the first tags that I see are "potheads" and "boobies."
Smashing.
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
Yes, and it works better for those of us with bipolar disorder that have a resistance to everything except it, and olanzapine... Try a few weeks on olanzapine... Pot leaves you far less loopy, and controls rage better... And doesn't have the horrible side effect of rapid weight gain, the tremors, or the migraines. I am a lot happier since I got my medicinal marijuana prescription.
It would be better that we all died of cancer than ingested something derived from cannabis.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
look at taxol and the yew tree for breast cancer treatment
what the pharma companies do is substitute a methyl group for a hydrogen somewhere, or mix the chemical with some other chemical, patent that, and call it vastly superior, even if it isn't
just look at celebrex: it's just an NSAID. nothing that aspirin can't handle. but they modified the chemical slightly, patent that, the effects are slightly different, but the slight effects are relabelled massive and brilliant improvements in function, and you have a market
they do it with the opiates too: see oxycodone
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
we could spend that money on education too, or healthcare for the middle class
we don't. we think it's valuable to our security to get rid of saddam hussein and democratize iraq. is that right? is it wrong? certainly, it could be the stupidest thing the usa has ever done
but therefore, you need to defeat the money spent on that operation based on that rationale alone, within the confines of the merits or lack thereof of that operation by itself
but comparing the money spent on that to money to be spent on some other worthy concern is stupid. nobody thinks like that and gets anything done in this world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if it was deliverable via smoking. Not to mention it would inspire students to enter medical research.
Kid on a field trip: "Haha, look at that rat smoking a dubie!"
Tour guide: "Thats medical research son, thats what we get paid to do."
Kid: "I know what I want to be when I grow up!"
Monstar L
is gynocomastia. man boobs
so this seems like a problem that takes care of itself:
1. smoke pot
2. grow boobs
3. get boob cancer
4. smoke more pot
5. cure boob cancer
if this logic seems a little hazy to you, well, you're right. it's called stoner logic
now if you will excuse me
(puff puff)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just a thought, but I wonder if it could be possible that humans are genetically disposed to loving cannabis? It has been a commonly used plant for a long, long time. The seeds have been used as food and seem to have the perfect balance of essential fats. Now it seems we've discovered it suppresses certain forms of common cancer. Certainly, there are people who abuse themselves with it, but maybe we want them to. In my experience, the people who overuse pot are the same people who have trouble restraining many of their impulses. One of my room mates seemed to actually became a human when he was high... otherwise he was intolerable. By taking these people's pot away, we don't make them better people, just angrier.
Another thing to note is that, while cannabis is illegal now, if we are genetically disposed to love it, cannabis will win the legal battle eventually no matter what the logic for it's legalization is. People legalize things they love and suppress the things they hate ignoring all logic in the process. You can't fight your nature. :)
try telling that to my Psychiatrist, she seems to think all of my problems are down to me smoking a bit of pot now and then
I think running onto a freeway naked is safer than easting at McDonald's...
to allow for use in medicine. at least not for us american's.
in fact, I am amazed we don't create a newer higher, scarier "level" for it.
these scientists must be muzzled
> I'm getting a little sick of hearing about 'potential' breakthroughs. I want something we can start using right now.
attention all researchers: you have been warned. from here on out it's all or nothing. no scientific method. no peer review. no journals. no conferences. no progress. we demand immediate and absolute salvation.
> It's hard to be patient when people you care about are sick or dying.
and we all know that if something is hard then you simply shouldn't have to do it, right?
Yeah, you tell that to my friend who DEVELOPED bipolar disorder because he started smoking pot. Maybe he had a propensity, but smoking it completely screwed him up, even now that he's stopped.
frankly, it's an embarassment that the usa doesn't have this. all arguments against universal healthcare are not just morally bankrupt, they are logically bankrupt. if you accept the notion that everyone in a rich country should have good healthcare, socialized medicine falls logically into place
even from just a callow economic point of view, in terms of the cost of preventive care (what you get with socialized medicine) versus the costs of emergency care, it is cheaper
what is the system we have now? a more inefficient and wasteful bureacratic way to get a less quality system
or we can just let middle class people go bankrupt when they get cancer, and leave tons uninsured
it's such bullshit, the state of healthcare in the usa
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
New research has shown that Cannabis, long considered a drug "gateway" to debilitating addiction, is in fact highly toxic and deadly to certain cells, scientists confirm.
..cannabis...scourge of health in the modern world which civilised peoples hope one day to eliminate. Cannabis...targets the.... healthy cells are...destroyed....causing....tumors...allowing healthy...cancer....to grow undamaged... leaving only...cancer...smoking cannabis is....wont get you high"
"Taking just one of the many chemicals from cannabis we conclusively demonstrated that it is an extremely efficient and effective killer..." said a scientist in what was a longer more informative statement. The scientist later continued "
More on the Cannabis-Cancer Scare later, onto other news, a new type of jam filled butter biscuit - which can be dosed up with medicines - is revolutionising the childrens medicine market sector. A spokeman said "children dont like taking meds, but they do like sugary snacks and butter based biscuits, so our idea was to fuse medical over-prescribing and tasty treats......
I used to think that it would be legal by the time I was thirty.
I high school (circa 1977), at least 70% of the kids smoked regularly or occasionally.
25% didn't care if anyone smoked it and only 5% were against it. (These numbers are all personal observation so take with a grain of salt.) The point is -- I was a geek, I occasionally did imbibe, I didn't care if anyone else smoked all day long.
Fast forward a couple decades. Those same pot-heads are now republicans and swear that they never, ever smoked pot. In fact they believe it is immoral to do so. And anyone who does should be thrown in jail. Amazing how raising kids changes your perspective.
I believe that alcohol is far worse than pot to your body and to society as a whole. BTW, I quit smoking pot years ago, but that doesn't mean you should.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
While I agree that a new system would be a great idea, the transition would be the death of us. All of the current systems being proposed are merely shifting the costs to the taxpayers. There's no real reform being considered at all. Nothing is getting at WHY it costs so much, as no one seems to care. Either that or the special interests have the key players all firmly in-pocket.
If you think our current government can manage a healthcare system, I invite you to study the mess that Medicare has become, and the impact it has had on the cost of private insurance.
No, something is wrong up there, and they don't seem intent on finding out what it is. Only throwing more money at it. And gee, I wonder who would benefit from that? Certainly not patients...
That's a horrible metaphor! Whether you shoot the conductor or the violinist, the rest of the orchestra will scatter, trust me!
It's just really hard to estimate doseage. As it all depends on the quality of the herb, the effects the user wants, etc. Personally I'm a fan of chronic olive oil (VICS has a good recipe). Basically, experiment with what you have and see what works for you. Some people swear by using "vapour poo" for making olive oil/butter. Others grow their own and chop up the male plants for making butter/oil.
:) Butter is a bit harder to make (majorly labour intensive) but you can end up with a killer batch of brownies that last a long time due to the potency (the freezer is your friend). One note, eating cannabis is very different from smoking it, you can easily eat too much, and sadly, you can't un-eat it. So start slow, and give it an hr or two before trying another piece of cake/whatever. Note: I'm not advocating you break the law of wherever you live, I'm just giving suggestions so if you do ingest cannabis you'll do so with your eyes open, and maybe won't run into oncoming traffic.
Generally speaking, don't just sprinkle herb on your food unless you have a high tolerance for food that tastes strongly of pot (yuck). Making olive oil (or corn oil, whatever oil you want really) is the easiest method for most people to have some good thc laced treats, and it makes some damn good enchiladas/pasta
If you're really experimental there are ways to infuse thc into alchohal for use at clubs and places where using "breath drops" would be acceptable. But that is even more of a headache than making butter. Search for "cannabis tincture" if you're so inclined. If you live in SoCal and are a MMJ patient you can buy cannabis oil, cannabis tincture, and other assorted ready made foods from your local MMJ dispensary. YMMV.
Then how come I can buy vitamin C, calcium etc etc just about anywhere?
Vitamin C is a classic example of selective enforcement of laws by the US government and the medical industry here.
Technically, sale of vitamin C should be regulated, according to the FDA's own laws, since according to their own definition (i.e. Any chemical used to treat or prevent a disease is by legal definition, a drug, regardless of what that chemical's source comes from) vitamin C is a drug. Vitamin C is used to treat and prevent scurvy, a bona fide disease, recognized as a disease by the entire world of medical practice. The government and the medical establishment simply turn their heads away and ignore examples such as vitamin C since it doesn't fit their model world, but yet they will not re-write the laws and established medical industry canon to explicitly provide specific exceptions for vitamin C (and others, e.g. vitamin B3, niacin, as a cure and preventative agent against pellagra), because once the FDA establishes a formalized exception for the vitamins, they've then begun their own "slippery slope" of establishing a precedent by which their own regulatory power could start slipping away out from under them. Therefore they refuse to codify exceptions for the vitamins, and the whole medical establishment just looks the other way and practices selective enforcement of their own rules. The unpatentability of vitamins keeps the pharma industry from even talking about such things too, so they pretend the issue doesn't exist too. The whole lot of them: the FDA, the pharma industry, and a great many of the professional medical researchers and practitioners are all just a steaming pile of f'ing hypocrites.
Could you be so kind to cite your sources? "They" doesn't sound very convincing. You suggest Cannabis has a permanent effect on cognitive skills. If true, that would be *major* news.
So hippie girls will always have great boobs then. Too bad they haven't worn bras for the last 50 years.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That has to be the most fatuous thing I've ever read on Slashdot. "If you don't completely agree with me, you are not honest, free-thinking, or educated."
Where does the line to the concentration camp gate form?
Advice: on VPS providers
with all the waste a government system obviously means, it is still far better than an equally wasteful system, that only cares about profit, that doesn't insure everyone
i am not stumping for universal healthcare as some sort of nirvana, i am saying it is the less worse of two evils
all of the negatives you can throw at me about universl ahealthcare, i agree with you 100%
and it's still better than what we have now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well there area a lot of natural products out there, just governments would rather sell us pills than let use use the natural remedy, mainly due to the fact...they cannot tax 99% of the natural remedy's we can acquire. They can't tax pot, which is why its illegal, not because its a drug, but because the government makes no money off of it.
Yeah, that's great.
I tell you what, I'll vote for a socialized health-care system if you volunteer you and yours to always lose the treatment lotto for cancer patients.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5720758a-c427-45b0-96f1-0960771f6278&k=85427&p=1
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061120.wxcancerdrugs20/BNStory/cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5413132.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/east_midlands/7012406.stm
Or when the treatment stinks, guess what Canadians do?
" In Ontario, new drugs have become bogged down in paperwork and a slow review process, the report says. Private cancer clinics have sprung up to offer the drugs to patients who can afford to pay for them." Quoted from the first link above.
"The United Kingdom in particular comes out badly in the tables, showing cancer survival rates that are among the worst in Europe." Quoted from the article below.
Essentially you're saying that we should scrap the entire US system that has it's ups and downs but has covered the essential needs of all fairly well. For instance, all of Europe lags behind the US in detection and treatment of cancer, therefore survival rates are lower.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737 Reg required (sorry) interesting bits below.
colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States)
breast (79.0% vs 90.1%)
prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%)
The above statistics were compiled in a study by an Italian doctor.
Thanks, but no thanks. As the government has been shown to be incompetent at everything it attempts to do, I would rather it do less, so that I can do more. Your inability to cope with responsibility casts a shadow on your parents and educators, who should have taught you more about the ideology behind the USA's governmental system.
Dr. Towlie will see you now.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
at me about socialized medicine
i agree with every single one of them you've shown me, i deny none of them
AND IT'S STILL BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW
i am not presenting universal healthcare as some sort of nirvana, you're an idiot if you think attacking it conceptually as a nirvana somehow defeats the idea the socialized medicine
socialized medicine is simply the less worse of two evils, where our current broken, ineffectual bureacratic profit driven system is FAR WORSE
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Claim 1: Stops cancer cells from metastasizing.
Article Says: Used to treat metastatic cancer.
Claim 2: Non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy
Article Says: this might be useful as a low toxicity chemotherapy drug.
The fact is that any drug that is effective in treating cancer must be toxic to at least cancer cells, and chemotherapy is by definition the use of a drug to control cancer.
It was listed by Hypocrates as a cure-all.
Where? I've read a good chunk of the Hippocratic Corpus (I'll forgive you for misspelling his name and for not realizing that none of the works that survive under his name can be reliably ascribed to him) - some of it in Ionic Greek - and I don't remember seeing anything about cannabis being used as a panacea.
And how is that different than the current system? You are already "playing the lotto" that your HMO won't declare your cancer "a pre-existing condition" or the treatment that you need is "experimental".
What good is a cure for cancer if your HMO won't pay for it and you can't afford it?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Argument 1. The government has repeatedly proven itself incompetent and inefficient.
So, that argument proves your statement wrong.
Argument 2. I do not wish to place responsibility for my healthcare in the hands of the government, as I don't trust them to keep my information private. In addition, I do not trust that healthcare access will not be used as a barrier to future action/ an enticement to behave in ways that are beneficial to the government.
Neither one of those arguments fit your criteria, so in short, you statement was incorrect.
There are two separate questions here. Why was it made illegal in the first place, and why is it still illegal? It was made illegal for several reasons. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was the start. A brilliant piece of legislation, it mandated punishments for selling pot without a license. To get a license, one needed to have pot, which was illegal without the license. No one could possible comply with the law.
Three different factors influenced the passing of the law. First, the major pharmaceutical companies, which had all been cheerfully selling cannabis based remedies for years, had developed new patented drugs which commodity cannabis competed with. Next, it threatened profits from DuPont's new material, Nylon, discovered two years earlier. Remember "Hemp for Victory?" It also threatened profits from Hearst's vast timber holdings, as it makes a much better and cheaper paper than wood.
Finally, there was the prohibition issue. Prohibition created a vast Federal police machine, which was loath to see its power diminished with the end of alcohol prohibition. This also explains why it is still illegal. The police and prison guards' unions are among the largest and most powerful in the country. It's estimated that we would have to cut our police and prison budgets by 80% if we legalized cannabis.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Argument 1. The government has repeatedly proven itself incompetent and inefficient.
the government IS incompetent and inefficient. >sarcasm<and our current healthcare system is a paramount of efficiency, zero bureaucracy and efficicieny>/sarcasm<
Argument 2. I do not wish to place responsibility for my healthcare in the hands of the government, as I don't trust them to keep my information private.
but you're perfectly welcome to place your healthcare in the hands of an hmo, which only cares about profit
and for that, you're a fucking moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Dude, you're getting a remission of cancer!
I wonder what Apple Girl would say...
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
That's what I was shooting for, though admittedly it's challenging trying to find accurate values. There's individual universities doing cancer research without funding from the NCI, drug companies doing their own research, and so on. What I was shooting for was a single government agency that represented research at a national level.
I completely agree that our country spends a lot of money treating cancer. Mostly that's because so many people get it. Our neighbor just had surgery, radiation therapy, and is currently on her second round of chemotherapy. As a treatment, it basically kills her, just slightly less quickly than the cancer itself. It's also very expensive, with lots of office visits, surgical procedures, and lab tests.
As an interesting comparison, deaths due to heart disease have been improving. I know a couple people who would have died ten or twenty years ago from heart disease, but the treatments are really good now. My guess is that the nature of heart disease is mostly mechanical (e.g. tubes and a pump) while cancer is a problem of molecular biology. Unfortunately we just don't understand the latter well enough yet.
our current healthcare system is a paramount of efficiency, zero bureaucracy and efficiency
oh, and btw, keep waiting. you need me to spoonfeed you proof about the fucking obvious before you accept it?
nice rhetorical approach: "you must be wrong, because unless you scurry about and provide a two hour report for me, then the FUCKING OBVIOUS about the bureacratic wasteful inefficiency that is our current healthcare system must be a false depiction"
pfffffft
okay
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do it or admit you can't please, save the insults for someone who will fall for them.
No, I need you to give SOME evidence apart from your essentially worthless opinion. Since the point is central to your argument, it would seem you should have SOME evidence to form your opinion. Should, but don't apparently.
i called you a fucking moron
this is a valid depiction of your thinking about choosing profit driven healthcare over government healthcare
both suck. profit driven healthcare is FAR WORSE. there: moral and logicla superiority to you
if you think calling you names, based on your own stupidity, makes me somehow morally or logically bankrupt, you don't knwo what morality or logic is
if i'm guilty of anything, it's being rude
and i have no problem accepting that charge, while retaining moral and logical superiority to your way of thinking
you fucking moron
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
providing me with a detailed report about the fucking obvious, i refuse to accept the fucking obvious"
!?
ok
in your next argument with me, i want you to insist i provide proof the sky is blue, and if i don't, then you must be right when you say the sky is green
same fucking rhetoricla situation
dude: it is fucking obvious that profit-driven healthcare is morally, logically, functionally, and logistically inferior to government healthcare. both suck, but profit-driven healthcare is FAR WORSE on any measurement that cares about results
and you want evidence of that?
about the fucking obvious?
sorry, i'm not in the business of spoonfeeding people intellectual charity
if you want to misrepresent my resistence to providing you with proof of the fucking obvious as an inability to provide you with proof of the fucking obvious, then you go on with your bad self
i guess the sky is green too
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From Herodotus:
Then they take some hemp seed, creep into the tent, and throw the seed onto the hot stones. At once it begins to smoke, giving off a vapour unsurpassed by any vapour-bath one could find in Greece. The Scythians enjoy it so much they howl with pleasure
So no facts, that's exactly what I thought.
Making pot use a felony offense drives alot of people in many ways. If you want more time spent on "real" diseases, get the gov't to lay off pot. Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.
Blar.
list the positives of profit-driven healthcare (there are many)
list the negatives of profit-driven healthcare
list the positives of universal healthcare
list the negatives of universal healthcare (there are many)
the fucking obvious: universal healthcare is not wonderful, but it's better than what we have
anything else i can help you with cretin?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't forget, man, it totally... yeah...
Pass the california cheeseburgers, man.
so given those negatives, don't you think universal healthcare is still better than profit driven healthcare?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I do advocate smoking ganja.
BTW, THC is much more soluble in fat than in EtOH. This Erowid article has good information on chemically extracting THC. I don't advocate that unless you know what the fuck you are doing. You know, something more than HS chemistry. Acetone is poisonous.
Anyway, I really do advocate that you (yes, you) smoke the sensimillia till yu eyes turn red certain. A fi bun mi sensi!
For a good history of the legal process that resulted in pot being illegal, see http://www.adrugwarcarol.com./ For more general information, please see http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/, a truely impressive compendium of information on the topic.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
A good friend of mine gets direct relief from his muscle spasms caused by MS, directly from smoking pot, for which he has a prescription. How does my getting high on the stuff invalidate his relief?
You, sir, are one of the willfully, cruelly ignorant masses that cause our perverse war on drugs to continue to damage the world.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Metastasis can be described like an original tumor sending peons elsewhere in the body to establish new colonies (tumors).
So this CBD compound could prevent the problem from spreading, but not end it.
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
Dude. If you believe pot should be illegal, you are wrong. Period.
And the really fucked up thing is that you're taking your revenge against the *entirely* the wrong people. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911.
At the end of the 12 month period, the patients were evaluated again using the same measures as in the first study. But this time, physiotherapists saw a marked improvement for subjects on active drugs. They had reduced muscle spasticity and an improved overall score for their level of disability.
Zajicek is cautious about the implications of the study as it was not specifically designed to test the efficacy of drugs over 12 months. But the results do support animal research that shows cannabinoids may slow nerve cell death and protect against damage.
Or did you just really, really want to believe that something that can be used for fun can't be used to treat diseases?
You can't take the sky from me...
Speaking of fatuous, how does one go from "wants this to be illegal" to "completely agree with me"?That has to be the most fatuous thing I've ever read on Slashdot. "If you don't completely agree with me, you are not honest, free-thinking, or educated."
You got a support beam stuck in your eye there, buddy.
You can't take the sky from me...
If you have a pre-existing condition, depending on the condition there almost always is a way to find coverage in the US. (Having dealt with asthma, diabetes, cancer, hbp, and smoking in one family member or another.) If the gov't turns you away? You have to fly to another country to get help. This was popular in London when I lived there.
The efficiency of HMO's have already shown us a way... Prevention costs them less money therefore they pay more willingly for preventative care, which is believed to be the driving force behind the better survivability rates in the US. They also ask for increased rates for certain risky behavior i.e., scuba diving, rock-climbing, competitive athletics, smoking, and obesity, but they still provide care, whereas smokers are often refused care for conditions in socialized medical systems. The medical system dares to refuse them care even though they pay more into the system than the average tax-payer.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2859623.ece
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20771
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:T02b2uvFa7AJ:www.west-dunbarton.gov.uk/clydebank/documents/8_-_Impact_of_Tax.pdf+compare+NHS+cost+of+smoker+to+taxes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
The HMO's have a vested interest in providing better, more efficient service than gov't care. I don't know about where you live, but competition is alive and well here in Oklahoma between various healthcare providers. I have seen gov't care first hand as a Marine, and later as a expat in the UK. I was not impressed on either occasion.
Also, HMO's are not the only plans or services available. PPO's, EPO's, HDHP's, and plain ol' cash also work for the gainfully employed. For those who are not, Medicaid, and the various state run programs pick up the slack. Do people fall through the cracks? Sure, but would I rather have the ability to pull myself out of the crack without the gov't workers unions and medical workers associations stepping on my head by decrying the use of private physicians? You bet your ass I would.
Universal healthcare is a sucker's bet. Just as sure as Social Security and perpetual motion are sucker's bets. The only difference is that a lot of us will be able to have our suck at the teat before it runs dry, our children will not be so lucky.
Look at the reforms in the Euro nations regarding healthcare. They are finding the burden is too much for the tax system to bear. Over time they have to cut costs (by cutting benefits) or raise taxes.
As for positives? I can pick and choose my doctor without anyone's approval. I pay a pittance more for the privilege. The emergency room shortage due to flooding caused by low income/no income populace? I can get around that by going to an urgent care facility, of which there are 7 within a 3 mile radius. I don't have to win a lottery to get cutting-edge treatment, I can pay, or I can appeal to many avenues of assistance, including test trials for treatments. (One of which saved my father-in-law in the sixties from a near-death asthma attack, his family had no running water at the time and lived 14 people to a two room farmhouse.)
In socialized medical systems they are suffering from shortages in doctor availability because of the low-rates mandated by the gov't. In the US? We have glut of physicians to choose from. Dentistry? Why do Europeans sing about wanting American teeth? (Quite literally, a phrase to that effect was heard by myself in a little pop-club in London.)
By using a bureaucracy to disseminate treatment you are taking the power of choice away from the individual. That mind set is antithetical to the liberal concept of more freedom an
Cannabis makes the most ridiculous thoughts seem profound and important. The world becomes more interesting, more beautiful, more menacing. It can be a pleasant experience, but it's no road to cognition.
Cannabis doesn't make you think. It makes you think you think.
The premise is violated, because people disagree about what 'good healthcare' is.
Does it mean the latest patented medicines and fanciest procedures? Does it include being a client of various monopolies (e.g. AMA)?
There's also this problem: responsibility for other peoples' health, implies a right to exert power over their health. That's a mandate to ban people from doing harm to themselves. It also leads to debate and endless controversy about what is harmful, how far to take it, etc.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
you have a bundle of negatives and positives, but you can't put it all together
namely, you can't prioritise a huge issue: the need to treat everyone
does the current system treat everyone?
no. if it's too expensive, they hand it off to the government. so you pay for it anyways thourgh the government
all that happens with a profit driven system is that the rich do fine, the poor do fine, and the middle class are burned by hassle after hassle, until they give up and suffer, or declare bankruptcy and get trated by the government
this in your mind is a superior system than just saying "everyone has guaranteed care, everyone pays"
you think there will be more bureacuracy? you think you will pay more than you do now?
HEY MORON: NOTICE THE EXPENSE AND PAPERWORK IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM?
you're insane or stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As I've said before, this was anecdotal at a support meeting when the topic of alternative treatment options came up. I personally feel that when you have a major disease you should have pretty much carte blanch when it comes to treatment options and to work with your doctors to find what works best for you, not matter what it is. I'd love for there to be a non-injectable/pill treatment option available for me. But, at this point my doctors feel it best to keep me with traditional treatments (which run about 20k a year).
I have NO problem with using anything for treatment as long as it actually works. But, I've become cynical as to treatment options or what's presented as a treatment just to be told that it's affects are placebo or have worse side effects and more so to people who sell false hope to sick/dieing people be it with a snake oil cure or preliminary finding in a study that "may one day lead to a cure".
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
In other words, "you'll need to smoke A LOT of it, to get the desired effects".
Again, scientists prove what common people have known for years!
you think that profit-driven healthcare somehow immunizes us from all of those debates? the debates exist, we are subject to them. and they don't decide for or against universal healthcare either way, because the current retarded system we live under has the same debates raging
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They actually discovered this 12 years ago, but got really stoned to celebrate and forgot.
Unless you buy into the argument that the free market is a vital component of medical breakthroughs, and socialized medicine would lead pharmaceutical companies to cut their R&D budgets.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
I hate to promote drugs as a selling point, but as a legitimate position.. Vote for Republican RON PAUL in the US 2008 Presidential election. He is really a libertarian and has been advocating legalizing drugs for years.
In summary:
If you want to SMOKE DOPE [or think adults should be able to decide for themselves, NOT government],
vote for RON PAUL!
...and the new natural causes. A lot of people whose cause of death was attributed to one of those probably died of cancer. A big difference is we keep getting better at diagnosing it.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
since everything they develop is only affordable to the upper middle class
you're saying the rest of us should suffer in order to preserve the intellectual property framework that preserves health standards for the upper middle class of rich countries
that's what you are really saying, whether you realize it or not
the benefits will trickle down eventually?
oh how nice of you
now i see where your concerns really lie: for the rich
well fuck you
in universal healthcare, yes, progress will be slower
and yet progress will be more just
i'm all for a slower rater of progress that is more just in its distribution
if you furnish the r&d labs with increased spending, that comes with it a string attached that there is an expectation of financial returns on any discoveries, then you by definition are locking those advanced r&d developments into the provenance of the rich who can afford the developments
fuck that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
run by incompetents, is still superior, in terms of results, to a bad system run by the competent
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Your first point is actually a question, but I agree, it is a valid one. How was the study conducted? How did the researchers address potential sampling biases, etc? However, let's not assume a priori that the researchers ignored these factors.
In your second point, you seem to be making the assumption that pot smokers who do not have emphysema will lie more often than those who do. While I am sure that we can imagine reasons why these rates would be different, do we have any evidence that they actually are? I would be interested to see if the researchers addressed this issue.
As a part of my job, I read a lot of drug use studies and, yes, there do appear to be a lot of research biases. But let's not fall into the trap of assuming that all studies are flawed just because they address a controversial topic. There are a lot of good people in the field and the ones I know try very, very hard to produce accurate results.
And I agree with your third point. I wish more marijuana users would do more to avoid potential lung damage by finding alternate means of delivery. Unfortunately, in the US, harm reduction strategies are not emphasized.
Im really a strong advocate for socialized medicine - I grew up in Sweden, where the Social Democrats have been in power more or less as long as people can remember (apart from a right wing alliance w/ the moderates, 91-93, 06-present).
I believe firmly in healthcare for all - we pay a symbolic fee of 140kr ~20USD when we come in - whether we cut our finger or got shot in the leg seven times.
(from wiki)
Financing
The state finances the bulk of health care costs, with the patient paying a nominal fee for examinations and some tests. The state pays for approximately 85 % of medical costs.
When a physician declares a patient to be ill for whatever reason (by signing a certificate of illness/unfitness), the patient is paid a percentage of their normal daily wage from the second day. For the first 14 days, the employer is required to pay this wage, and after that the state pays the wage until the patient is declared fit.
The state also reimburses patients for travel costs to and from the clinic or hospital.
[edit] Examples of patient fees in Stockholm:
Appointment at a clinic - 140 SEK (ca 15)
Appointment at a clinic (child) - 0 SEK
Appointment with specialist - 260 SEK (ca 27)
In-patient care - 80 SEK (ca 8.50)/day
This is all fine.
Further down on the wiki,
Criticism
The main criticism leveled at Swedish health care is that the waiting times are too long.
This is where things go wrong. There is no preventive care - you need care, you get in line.
Your statement that socialized healthcare means preventive care is just false, and Sweden has one of the best models in the world.
Smoking produces a fair amount of CBD and CBN only if the marijuana was harvested well before maturity. THC (tetrahydrocannibinolic) acids are produced from CBD (cannabidiolic) acids. CBN (cannabinolic) acids are the degraded THC acids. Too much CBN will make you feel sick and give you a headache. You find large amounts of THC and CBD in a very ripe and mature bud, so I don't know what these particular scientists are smoking.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"The article notes that smoking cannabis will not deliver significant quantities of CBD."
Good thing you can eat it.. you can even distill the pot down to high quality hash where a small bite (think small peanut butter cup) will deliver the medicine quite nicely.
unfortunately I never see this brought up when anti pot activists spout the "more dangerous than cigarettes/400 toxic compounds in smoke" argument.
At no point did I do anything but try to engage you in debate, and I was honest and straightforward without being insulting.
You called me a "fucking moron".
You lost your opportunity to ask me questions. Come back when you grow up.
No wonder it stops the cancer from metastasizing... this is a irrefutable proof that everyone is cooler with cannabis. Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends?... sup carcinoma? sup bro... this shit is niiiiice. gonna metastasize me later? No man we are coool, we are cool...
if you accept the notion that everyone in a rich country should have good healthcare, socialized medicine falls logically into place
That sounds exactly backwards. You're going to need a better argument than just tossing out words like "morally bankrupt" and hoping they stick.
"Socialized -anything-" has historically been to be a really bad way to provide a service. The free market is really efficient at bringing prices down and delivering goods. Homeless guys outside my office have iPods; I doubt if there had been a government program to deliver "music to everybody" it would have had any result at all.
Healthcare in America is kind of lousy, but most of the problems I see today are because there's *too much* government involvement. I fail to see how "let's turn the whole thing over to the government" is a good idea in medicine, or any other field. Look at American public schools, for example: you want to do that to medicine? I'd fear for my life!
Or look at this very cannabis study. You're proposing turning more (all?) control of the healthcare system over to the same government that says cannabis is illegal (for various reasons, all sketchy), despite being demonstrably healthy. "Logical" my ass.
Have you read that study? They took 17 people with collapsed lungs or emphysema, all of whom smoked on average six joints a day over a period of more than eight years and also consumed cigarettes on a daily basis for nearly 12 years. They then said that tests were unable to show which substances had caused the lung damage.
You can post some facts to support your statement like I asked originally. You've continually avoided doing so despite every attempt by me. Calling me a cretin does nothing but demonstrate that you have no facts and have to resort to insults because you know you're wrong.
So facts. Names don't offend me one bit, they just prove that I'm right about you.
Why not give some of your own money to research the 'real' diseases you're so concerned about.
Blar.
It's called the "straw man" fallacy.
Interesting idea with the ball bearings. But it should be noted that an unfiltered joint is better at delivering a higher proportion of THC to tar when compared to water pipes. Apparently the water traps a higher % of thc than tar according to that one MAPS study that compared various smoking apparatuses So a pipe without water would be the best method (if you don't like vaporizers) as not only do you get less tar, but you don't get a continuous burn and there's no wasted product. I've used just crushed ice before, and found it quite nice, might be worth picking up something small and plastic to test the BB idea though. Even if it didn't condense the tar, you would still get the same chilling effect on the smoke.
>BTW, anyone can get breast cancer. It doesn't have to do with boobs, it has to do with estrogen.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
As an attorney who occasionally handles drug cases, I can tell you that in most cases, the biggest harm will come from the legal system, not the substance. Even the coke-heads who probably should back off get into more trouble from legal problems than the drug. Any kid nowadays (unlike when I was a kid (the early 80's) has way more to fear from a "bust" than the "stuff". You can now get a DWI with a .02 in NY State...one beer...if you are under 21. In NJ, you get mandatory drug therapy for a minor pot bust. All sorts of ancillary penalties are in place, driver's license suspensions, student loan losses, etc, for minor drug use.
This is because the "antis" think that the only way to kill the fly is with a bigger sledgehammer. Meanwhile, I live in an area where all the pot-heads I know have six figure incomes, positions of responsibility in their companies, and coach kid's soccer on the weekends.
After a day of watching the war on drugs in court, all I can say is .... BULLSHIT !
Actually, marijuana can be taxed. In fact that was how it was originally made "illegal". The government required growers to obtain a federal tax stamp in order to produce it, then they just refused to issue any of these stamps to anyone.
Good tirade, but it needed a lot more mmmkaay's.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
So, this argues for the current system, how? Why not a system where you cannot be denied care in the first place?
Your first link goes to a complaint about the "nanny state", yet you point to HMO's charging more for "risky behavior". What difference does it make if the government is the nanny or if a corporation is the nanny? The answer is that a corporation can arbitrarily decide what is bad for you based on their profit motive (the whole point of a corporation in the first place), where the government would at least have a consistent set of rules, not necessarily based on a profit motive.
Your argument that "smokers are often refused care for conditions in socialized medical systems" is without basis. For every socialized medical system that you can document this claim for, I can show you one that doesn't. Your generalization doesn't hold up.
HMO's have a vested interest in "more efficient" service (profit motive), but they definitely do not have a vested interest in "better" service. They have a vested interest in cheaper service, which means refusing care whenever possible.
I don't see that competition is "alive and well". Most people cannot afford anything but the group policy that their employer provides; that is essentially their only choice.
I have seen universal health care as an expat in Germany, and they have a -very- impressive system. I have also seen the military health care system, and while it isn't as impressive as the German system, it is far from broken.
Holy shit dude, "plain ol' cash"? WTF are you smoking? Sure, for something like a simple fracture, that can work. Or not. I have a friend who fractured her collarbone. They pinned it, but it didn't heal, so they had to do a bone graft. Guess what, the insurance company declared the bone graft to be an "experimental treatment", and she had to pay $8,000 out of pocket for the treatment, all the while making monthly insurance payments. For what? If you need major surgery or get something like cancer, there is just no way that's going to work. Why should I have to go into bankruptcy just because I happe
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
And how many mental illness (SCHYZOPHRENIA for example) caused by cannabis use ....
Good article and some really good responses. Check out the fastest growing petition to legalize @ http://www.petitiononline.com/facts420. Also feel free to add me to your myspace @ http://www.myspace.com/seeweedlegal
Thanks again
See Weed Legal
That was a cheap shot, but I don't think of marijuana research as 'wasting money' considering how many people still do use it despite draconian laws against its possession, use, cultivation and sale. I feel that whenever something is being used/done/believed/whatever by a significant segment of the population, that something should be studied.
Blar.
the monkeys evolved with flower and have been brainwashed by "kings" to not use it no longer as a form of control oh no.. the monkeys are dieing because they arnt using this FLOWER the earth provides us... "but i love my prescription drugs everyone ekse is doing them... the pharmaceutical industry makes more then a trillion dollars a year.. heaven knows what could happen when people realize they can grow their own cancer aid for free..
marijuana grows.. and wont stop you.. mr smith.. are dieing and are an obsolete program...