Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
[quote]The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines.[/quote][/quote]
And with portable vaporizers like these are on the market:
the most significant health-harming factor in pot use (inhaling thousands of random carcinogens by burning and smoking it) can be completely avoided, making pot use a potentially cancer-preventing hobby.
– ElbowStrike[/quote]
I was about to ask that, for the benefits of the THC would it be best to use a vaporizer? Seems weird that you would smoke to help the lungs. Also, that little gadget looks awesome do you have one?
Drug laws, much like laws regarding prostitution and gambling, are a feeble attempt to legislate morality. Additionally they create a criminal black market complete with guns, violence and exploitation. A prostitute cannot go to the police to report a crime against her/him simply because the prostitute is violating the law in the first place, subsequently a need to protect these people results in pimps, a need to protect drug shipments and drug corners results in guns and gunmen, and a need to collect gambling losses results in violence being perpetrated against guys that think Texas will cover. Think about it, prohibition just doesn’t work.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Drug laws, much like laws regarding prostitution and gambling, are a feeble attempt to legislate morality. Additionally they create a criminal black market complete with guns, violence and exploitation. A prostitute cannot go to the police to report a crime against her/him simply because the prostitute is violating the law in the first place, subsequently a need to protect these people results in pimps, a need to protect drug shipments and drug corners results in guns and gunmen, and a need to collect gambling losses results in violence being perpetrated against guys that think Texas will cover. Think about it, prohibition just doesn’t work.[/quote]
…and never has…but old people are afraid of change.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Drug laws, much like laws regarding prostitution and gambling, are a feeble attempt to legislate morality. Additionally they create a criminal black market complete with guns, violence and exploitation. A prostitute cannot go to the police to report a crime against her/him simply because the prostitute is violating the law in the first place, subsequently a need to protect these people results in pimps, a need to protect drug shipments and drug corners results in guns and gunmen, and a need to collect gambling losses results in violence being perpetrated against guys that think Texas will cover. Think about it, prohibition just doesn’t work.[/quote]
…and never has…but old people are afraid of change.[/quote]
Well, hold on… making the sale of certain items is probably good for everyone involved. For example: Nuclear weapons. If Lockheed martin had a license to produce and sell nukes, it would be a short time before a rogue state got hold of them and used them to nefarious purpose.
Similarly, the sale of contract killing should remain similarly prohibited. The service-oriented business based around breaking the law should not be legal.
So there are limits. Some things should be prohibited. Once a good or service passes a threshold where it becomes measurably and seriously harmful to third parties, it should be prohibited.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I really wonder what would happen to these cartels if they suddenly legalized pot and cocaine. I really do. [/quote]
You wonder? We already have a test case for that with alcohol. It’s very simple the cartels go bust and usage increases.
This is easy stuff. Decriminalize and deal with the problems that increased use will cause.
There you have it.[/quote]
If I might add:
[quote] Cato Wrote:
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not “legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization Ã?¢?? whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution Ã?¢?? Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be “decriminalized.” Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal’s decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.
Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal’s decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization
…
The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world."[/quote] http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
Although I think most of us are aware of this.[/quote]
So making the drug laws less strict has reduced the use of drugs? I don’t think that’s what they’re saying and I don’t think that it would make sense do you? [/quote]
Actually Zeb it does make sense. Did you know that when they enacted prohibition alcohol consumption increased? Addiction is a mental illness. What doesn’t make sense is thinking that we can interfere with a major aspect of a persons mental illness and expect them to react in a rational manner that is inconsistent with the symptoms of their mental illness.
In the later stages of addiction, using becomes an obsession. A major component of that obsession is ensuring there is a readily available supply of their drug of choice so they can maintain their blood levels. This is why late stage alcoholics will have little bottles of booze stashed around their house or workplace.
Prohibition threatens addicts with supply shortages, which makes them obsess all the more and hoard. Then once they have an extra supply on hand instead of slowly rationing it to themselves, they binge. Prohibition also motivates them to get others addicted to ensure a steadier supply.
[quote]
If when you awoke on Saturday there were no speed limit laws you would not drive faster? I know I would. The only thing that keeps me even near the speed limit is the threat of a ticket. And if you awoke and there was suddenly a death penalty for speeding the rate of speeding would quickly drop. [/quote]
When I was in Germany they had no speed limit in the passing lane. Even so the majority of drivers didn’t go faster than 80 mph because they didn’t want to. For the same reason legalizing drugs is not going to make everyone run out and become a crack head.
There is a death penalty for using drugs. I know several people who have died using. If the possibility of dying isn’t stopping addicts from using what makes you think a lame assed law is going to stop them?
Only because you are using flawed logic. Prohibition is using the criminal justice system to cure an incurable disease that is essentially a form of mental illness. What is illogical is thinking you can cure disease by making it illegal to show symptoms of the disease.
But there will be more available as the punishment for it is lowered. And as more becomes available won’t there be more of it in the hands of teens - Doesn’t that make sense? Again, I’m trying to make some sense of this for myself. Please correct me where you feel I am mistaken.
Thanks.[/quote]
Availability.
It has never been a hindrance to use. If you think that it has been, then you must not have much experience in finding it.
Hell, I started (and knew where to get it) when I was 11.
Give me 5 minutes and I could get a bag within walking distance of Anywhere. Guaranteed.
[/quote]
I don’t doubt you for even one second. Now how much easier could an inexpeienced kid get it if the laws were no longer on the books to deter the pushers?
[/quote]
I can’t be any easier than it is now. It really can’t. Current distribution is completely unregulated.
Laws on the books don’t deter the people who are willing to take the risk of dealing(hence their current presence in society), and a lot of dealers, especially high school aged kids, have no problem selling to another kid who is just a couple of years younger.
It doesn’t mean that kids won’t still get it, it means that they will have to steal it off of their parents like booze.
[/quote]
I had no idea it was that prevalent. But still I wonder if reducing the laws is the answer.
[/quote]
In high school it was easier to get pot then alcohol.
Wow, you guys convinced me. So who should run this new pot company? Marlboro? I can see the Marlboro man falling off his horse as he smokes a joint. No wait, I think there must be a study somewhere that indicates that the more pot you smoke the better your balance. What was I thinking?
Anyway, how about big billboards promoting the positive effects of using pot? We could also promote it through TV, radio and the Internet. Since it does absolutely no harm and in fact cures so many illnesses we need to get the word out. I am dead serious. Why make such a miracle drug illegal?
I don’t see any problems coming from this at all. In fact, pot use will probably go down, it can’t get any higher (no pun intended) according to most of you. The use of most things that are hyped do go down right? I think if we really want pot use to go down we need to market it as a cure-all for everything from impotence to cancer, I read the studies and I’m on board! I get it. Whatever we make legal and welcome into society will not be used more. Yes, I get it.
Yeah, this all very, very good news. Thanks for enlightening me guys.
And forgive me for not understanding earlier. I Think I needed to read more posts from you guys who smoked since high school to truly understand where I went wrong.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why make such a miracle drug illegal?
[/quote]
Because in the 1930’s hemp was perched to take over the paper industry along with other products so a smear campaign was launched. This was when marijuana started getting associated with “dirty mexicans and blacks” and was credited with making white women want to listen to evil jazz music and have sex with dirty black people…and so on and so forth.
No one has written that there are no negatives to marijuana. However, to sit there in a society that literally allows you to go and get alcohol poisoning tonight with no reserve while throwing tomatoes at a plant that is not chemically addictive and does not cause death like alcohol is ridiculous.
A cup of coffee is more chemically addictive than marijuana.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
However, to sit there in a society that literally allows you to go and get alcohol poisoning[/quote]
Go back to the positive health benefits. When you slide into “it’s not as bad as alcohol” mode you are far less convincing. Let’s face it there are plenty of things that “are not as bad as alcohol” but still are not actually good for you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Maybe you should be more concerned with what position sounds most right. You have a plant here with the potential to at least slow mankind’s greatest disease that has less harmful actions that substances we normally put in our bodies…one that could help reduce quite a bit of the economic burden this whole country is currently faced with…and you won’t vote for it because why?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Maybe you should be more concerned with what position sounds most right. You have a plant here with the potential to at least slow mankind’s greatest disease that has less harmful actions that substances we normally put in our bodies…one that could help reduce quite a bit of the economic burden this whole country is currently faced with…and you won’t vote for it because why?[/quote]
You know you may have something there X. And in order to increase our tax base I think we should lower the drinking age and start selling Jack Daniels to high school kids. Hey, they get it anyway, right? And look at the extra tax dollars we could make. And as we know alcohol can act as a sedative. I’m sure there are plenty of high school kids who get stressed out about grades so it would help there.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Maybe you should be more concerned with what position sounds most right. You have a plant here with the potential to at least slow mankind’s greatest disease that has less harmful actions that substances we normally put in our bodies…one that could help reduce quite a bit of the economic burden this whole country is currently faced with…and you won’t vote for it because why?[/quote]
You know you may have something there X. And in order to increase our tax base I think we should lower the drinking age and start selling Jack Daniels to high school kids. Hey, they get it anyway, right? And look at the extra tax dollars we could make. And as we know alcohol can act as a sedative. I’m sure there are plenty of high school kids who get stressed out about grades so it would help there.
1-Cure-all
2-Increase tax revenue
Yep, I think we have another winner.[/quote]
??
The drinking age should be lowered. If you can volunteer for the military and DIE at 18, why the fuck can’t you drink a beer?
You haven’t explained why you are against it yet.
I’ll wait.
While you’re at it, explain why people need to be 21 to drink when most do it long before then?