[Billup]

Originally Posted by Jaswindersingh

Drugs were invented for diseases cure but people today are using them for fun. IMO almost every drug is good for health if used in moderate quantity. I am not saying from my personal experience. What other says i don't know.

Well, I have seen some commercials that say "Meth, not even once".


I'm assuming that's because it's not good for your health in a single quantity.

[Darth Federer]

Originally Posted by 954Stealth

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have shown how the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis could reduce tumor growth in cancer patients.

Research reveals the existence of previously unknown signaling platforms which are responsible for the drug’s success in shrinking tumors.

It is hoped that the findings could help develop a synthetic equivalent with anti-cancer properties.

The research was co-led with the Universidad Complutense de Madridin, Spain. The team used samples of human cancer cells to induce tumors in mice. They then targeted the tumors with doses of the cannabis compound THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol). They found that two cell receptors in particular were responsible for the drug’s anti-tumor effects.

“THC, the major active component of marijuana, has anti-cancer properties. This compound is known to act through a specific family of cell receptors called cannabinoid receptors. However, it was unclear which of these receptors were responsible for the anti-tumor effects of THC," said Dr. Peter McCormick, from UEA’s school of Pharmacy. “We show that these effects are mediated via the joint interaction of CB2 and GPR55 - two members of the cannabinoid receptor family. Our findings help explain some of the well-known but still poorly understood effects of THC at low and high doses on tumor growth."

McCormick added: “There has been a great deal of interest in understanding the molecular mechanisms behind how marijuana, and specifically THC, influence cancer pathology. There has also been a drive in the pharmaceutical industry to create synthetic equivalents that might have anti-cancer properties. By identifying the receptors involved we have provided an important step towards the future development of therapeutics that can take advantage of the interactions we have discovered to reduce tumor growth.”

McCormick also said that cancer sufferers should not be tempted to self-medicate.

“Our research uses an isolated chemical compound and using the correct concentration is vital. Cancer patients should not use cannabis to self-medicate, but I hope that our research will lead to a safe synthetic equivalent being available in the future," he said.

The study, "Targeting CB2 –GPR55 receptor heteromers modulates cancer cell signaling," is published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

The problem with this post is you are citing a discredited institution for your facts. The University of East Anglia is also the genius institution that has foisted completely discredited global warming data on unsuspecting morons for the last 10 years. If they can be paid to manipulate data from other research projects what makes you think they didn't do the same for the research you are citing? I hope you look into the buffoons at East Anglia and make the decision to get your facts elsewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

[954Stealth]

Originally Posted by Darth Federer

The problem with this post is you are citing a discredited institution for your facts. The University of East Anglia is also the genius institution that has foisted completely discredited global warming data on unsuspecting morons for the last 10 years. If they can be paid to manipulate data from other research projects what makes you think they didn't do the same for the research you are citing? I hope you look into the buffoons at East Anglia and make the decision to get your facts elsewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

I'm familiar with Climategate but that does not disprove this study. The Climate Research Unit did not conduct this study. And the local police department ended up closing the investigation..

re: getting my facts - I never rely on one source for my facts. It's not the first time this type of study has been conducted (see the OP).

another disclaimer: I don't smoke.

[Darth Federer]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

If you watch the documentary Run from the Cure you will clearly see he cured his own cancer as well as thousands of others using cannabis oil. He also tried to get the word out but nobody was really interested. In a way companies that make pharmaceuticals don't want diseases such as cancer to be cured especially not through natural means. They wouldn't make any money off it, and that is what you should be offended by. It's kind of similar to the fact that we go to war because its profitable. If you look up Rick Simpson you will see that he is not after money as he doesn't charge any of his patients for the medicine.

Btw there are many natural cures for cancer. Baking soda, vitamin b17, omega 3 and 6, antioxidants such as cannabis and blueberries, dandelions, and many more. Plants were put here for us to use and they all have there uses many we just don't know about. I believe diet along with beauty products and cleaners have a lot to do with cancer. Most people consume a lot of toxins and have a highly processed and unnatural diet. They develop nutrient deficiencies and free radicals start building up because the diet doesn't contain enough antioxidants.

Well I only got 2 pages into this thread before you completely discredited yourself with this crazy conspiracy theory. Do you really think a cure for cancer is being hidden by the pharmaceutical industry? In the day and age of the internet and bloggers and peer reviewed journals and free journalists you really think a conspiracy of this magnitude could be pulled off? Do you realize how many people would have to be corrupted to accomplish that? The NSA couldn't stop Edward Snowden, right? Do you believe in other conspiracy theories as well? Regardless, I think you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. To argue that drug use is not harmful in at least some ways only undermines your credibility. The argument for using drugs in any way you see fit should center on personal freedom, not some random claim at a magic cure or dubious anecdotal stories. Drug use is a victimless crime but the war on drugs creates many victims and wastes god knows how much money.

[upstatedoc]

god I love this thread.

[Chopper2017]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

If you watch the documentary Run from the Cure you will clearly see he cured his own cancer as well as thousands of others using cannabis oil. He also tried to get the word out but nobody was really interested. In a way companies that make pharmaceuticals don't want diseases such as cancer to be cured especially not through natural means. They wouldn't make any money off it, and that is what you should be offended by. It's kind of similar to the fact that we go to war because its profitable. If you look up Rick Simpson you will see that he is not after money as he doesn't charge any of his patients for the medicine.

Btw there are many natural cures for cancer. Baking soda, vitamin b17, omega 3 and 6, antioxidants such as cannabis and blueberries, dandelions, and many more. Plants were put here for us to use and they all have there uses many we just don't know about. I believe diet along with beauty products and cleaners have a lot to do with cancer. Most people consume a lot of toxins and have a highly processed and unnatural diet. They develop nutrient deficiencies and free radicals start building up because the diet doesn't contain enough antioxidants.

Absolutely correct in everything you say.
There is no conspiracy here there is only FACT.
Not only does money make the world go round it is also the route of all evil.
Yes the pharmaceutical companies do not want to find a cure to many diseases not just cancer.
Talking of toxins the worst culprit for the worlds increase in various diseases is without doubt the vast consumption of aspartame/ acesulfame K etc etc in our foods and drinks. It is now in MOST foods and drinks, is a chemical of no nutritional value and is a poison (contains methanol and turns into formaldehyde when reaches a certain warm temperature).
No AGAIN this is NOT a conspiracy, neither is it a conspiracy that the guy from the FDA who signed that crap off as being safe for human consumption then went onto a high paid job working for Monsanto the very company that produces Aspartame.
It disgusts me when people who have no background education on a subject shout "conspiracy theory" when they hear something they may not believe based on zero evidence and zero knowledge.
Next thing they'll be saying building 7 never fell over, 9/11 wasn't a false flag and Obama is officially an american citizen but also a good man at heart lol.
Most conspiracy theories are FACT not fiction made up by crazy people.
Do the research yourself, dont be lazy and ignorant.
you will find the truth...

My first post... lol.

[Chopper2017]

Originally Posted by Darth Federer

Well I only got 2 pages into this thread before you completely discredited yourself with this crazy conspiracy theory. Do you really think a cure for cancer is being hidden by the pharmaceutical industry? In the day and age of the internet and bloggers and peer reviewed journals and free journalists you really think a conspiracy of this magnitude could be pulled off? Do you realize how many people would have to be corrupted to accomplish that? The NSA couldn't stop Edward Snowden, right? Do you believe in other conspiracy theories as well? Regardless, I think you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. To argue that drug use is not harmful in at least some ways only undermines your credibility. The argument for using drugs in any way you see fit should center on personal freedom, not some random claim at a magic cure or dubious anecdotal stories. Drug use is a victimless crime but the war on drugs creates many victims and wastes god knows how much money.

Not corrupted, "de-compartmentalised"
Whilst were discussing credibility can you please explain to me why alcohol, the most dangerous drug on earth followed by nicotene the 2nd most dangerous drug on earth are legal in most countries yet cannabis which has a long list of PROVEN medical uses, LSD which believe it or not also has health benefits and exstacy which has mental PROVEN and once often used mental health benefits are illegal?
Yes LSD is a strong mind altering drug and yes exstacy has been linked to deaths but not 1, NOT ONE death has ever been linked to the use of cannabis.
Now... Ive done the background on this subject, Ive educated myself so I already know the answer.
The question is, do you?
I agree with you when you say drug use is victimless but it should never be a crime.
I also agree with you when you say the war on drugs creates many victims but this is the faults of our governments and the scum who control our governments from behind closed doors.

my 2nd post... rant over lol...

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by Chopper2017

Not corrupted, "de-compartmentalised"
Whilst were discussing credibility can you please explain to me why alcohol, the most dangerous drug on earth followed by nicotene the 2nd most dangerous drug on earth are legal in most countries yet cannabis which has a long list of PROVEN medical uses, LSD which believe it or not also has health benefits and exstacy which has mental PROVEN and once often used mental health benefits are illegal?
Yes LSD is a strong mind altering drug and yes exstacy has been linked to deaths but not 1, NOT ONE death has ever been linked to the use of cannabis.
Now... Ive done the background on this subject, Ive educated myself so I already know the answer.
The question is, do you?
I agree with you when you say drug use is victimless but it should never be a crime.
I also agree with you when you say the war on drugs creates many victims but this is the faults of our governments and the scum who control our governments from behind closed doors. Try something as simple as a chemotherapy agent it's use can kill you now not 20 years later.


my 2nd post... rant over lol...

Alcohol and nicotine are dangerous because of the number of people that use them in excess. You really can't think of something else more dangerous? Anything can be used as a drug if you are trying to alter the bodies natural function.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by bmw325i

Here is an interesting article about that.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/2...w-brain-aging/

"The latest review, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, suggests that activating the brain’s cannabinoid system may trigger a sort of anti-oxidant cleanse, removing damaged cells and improving the efficiency of the mitochrondria, the energy source that powers cells, ultimately leading to a more robustly functioning brain."

Did you miss this part?

"Piomelli cautions that the review doesn’t support the idea of using marijuana to improve brain aging among the elderly, not least because of its psychoactive effects. “This is definitely an important area of investigation but we are still far from a consensus,” he says."

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by Darth Federer

Drug use is a victimless crime

How could any rational person make that statement? Even if drugs were legal and free, the people harmed and families destroyed by people high on drugs would still remain and those people are victims. Due to irrational behavior, people high on drugs commit many crimes that affect other people. How can drug use be a victimless crime?

[Devant]

Drug use is not a victimless crime. Most drug use leads to other crimes such as robbery, burgurlary, assault in order for drug users to support their habit. Granted marijuana may be on the low end of that scale.

[Kafkaesque328]

Originally Posted by Devant

Most drug use leads to other crimes such as robbery, burgurlary, assault in order for drug users to support their habit. Granted marijuana may be on the low end of that scale.

This message brought to you by Nancy Reagan, circa 1988. Way to throw out a huge blanket statement that has little statistical basis in reality. Just a bunch of tired rhetoric and talking points for the most expensive most unsuccessful 'war' in history - the war on drugs. "Most" drug use meaning what exactly? Is this based on your extensive studies in this area? Care to share some data with us? So First you're sneaking beers out of your old man's fridge in the garage with your buddies, next you are smoking a little pot, pretty soon you are shooting heroin and finally, you are stealing and assaulting people to support your habit. Oldest fallacy in the book. Everything is not a slippery slope.

I don't smoke anymore but there are more pot dispensaries in L.A. county than anywhere in the US per capita and I know countless highly functional, highly paid professionals, family men, etc. who have used marijuana regularly, some on a daily basis, for years that have strangely, not developed hard drug addictions that they need to commit felonies to support. You are insane.

[1MOREMOD]

Just because some don't go down the slippery slope doesn't mean no one does. Who is more likely to head down that road some one with no drug use or someone that does. This is all common sense stuff. Drugs should be legal let the choice be made by the individual but don't delude yourself that it's good for you.

[Devant]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque320

This message brought to you by Nancy Reagan, circa 1988. Way to throw out a huge blanket statement that has little statistical basis in reality. Just a bunch of tired rhetoric and talking points for the most expensive most unsuccessful 'war' in history - the war on drugs. "Most" drug use meaning what exactly? Is this based on your extensive studies in this area? Care to share some data with us? So First you're sneaking beers out of your old man's fridge in the garage with your buddies, next you are smoking a little pot, pretty soon you are shooting heroin and finally, you are stealing and assaulting people to support your habit. Oldest fallacy in the book. Everything is not a slippery slope.

I don't smoke anymore but there are more pot dispensaries in L.A. county than anywhere in the US per capita and I know countless highly functional, highly paid professionals, family men, etc. who have used marijuana regularly, some on a daily basis, for years that have strangely, not developed hard drug addictions that they need to commit felonies to support. You are insane.

Nancy Regan, that’s cute. Judging by your hostile and irrational response, it appears I may have touched a nerve.

Do I need to have performed extensive studies to exercise a little common sense? Druggies always try to defend their choices, no matter how illogical their position.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by Devant

Nancy Regan, that’s cute. Judging by your hostile and irrational response, it appears I may have touched a nerve.

Do I need to have performed extensive studies to exercise a little common sense? Druggies always try to defend their choices, no matter how illogical their position.

Everyone does that it's a human trait. Religion is another example.

[Kafkaesque328]

Originally Posted by Devant

Nancy Regan, that’s cute. Judging by your hostile and irrational response, it appears I may have touched a nerve.

Do I need to have performed extensive studies to exercise a little common sense? Druggies always try to defend their choices, no matter how illogical their position.

No, you're statement was totally ridiculous with no basis in fact. You sound like a narrow minded ancient conservative dinosaur. "Druggie." Are you 90 years old?

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque320

I don't smoke anymore but there are more pot dispensaries in L.A. county than anywhere in the US per capita

Wow!! That's sure something to be proud of.

[Devant]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque320

No, you're statement was totally ridiculous with no basis in fact. You sound like a narrow minded ancient conservative dinosaur. "Druggie." Are you 90 years old?

O rly? No basis in fact. Drugs are not directly linked as the cause for other crimes? So all the statistics are wrong and you are right? Even your “legal” dispensaries cause a a myriad of crime activity in the areas where they are located.

Yes druggie. If you use drugs, you are a druggie, and I am 39.

[954Stealth]

"According to new research published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the annual number of deaths from prescription drug overdose is 25% lower in states where medical marijuana is legal compared with states where it remains illegal."

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque320

This message brought to you by Nancy Reagan, circa 1988. Way to throw out a huge blanket statement that has little statistical basis in reality. Just a bunch of tired rhetoric and talking points for the most expensive most unsuccessful 'war' in history - the war on drugs. "Most" drug use meaning what exactly? Is this based on your extensive studies in this area? Care to share some data with us? So First you're sneaking beers out of your old man's fridge in the garage with your buddies, next you are smoking a little pot, pretty soon you are shooting heroin and finally, you are stealing and assaulting people to support your habit. Oldest fallacy in the book. Everything is not a slippery slope.

I don't smoke anymore but there are more pot dispensaries in L.A. county than anywhere in the US per capita and I know countless highly functional, highly paid professionals, family men, etc. who have used marijuana regularly, some on a daily basis, for years that have strangely, not developed hard drug addictions that they need to commit felonies to support. You are insane.

Marijuana itself will not cause you to want to try other drugs. IMO it depends on the person more than anything. Alcohol could be considered a "gateway drug". Then again we could even say sugar and caffeine are "gateway drugs".

[upstatedoc]

Can ya'll just admit you smoke weed to get high and not for the "health benefits"? I mean c'mon really.

[Nkc]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

Can ya'll just admit you smoke weed to get high and not for the "health benefits"? I mean c'mon really.

What health benefits?

On a side note, I just got my mom vaping weed last weed. She's been dealing with depression all her life and have been prescribed antidepressants by her doctors. I'm gonna see how this goes. Will report back in a month.