NCI Cannabis Antitumor admission may be good news for cancer patients but not for recreational users

[usregimechange]

The studies that have been conducted have been on cancer patients and show possible tumor regression during periods of time that cannabis was taken.

"We report two children with septum pellucidum/forniceal pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) tumors..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336992

This evidence does not mean that cannabis may have anti-cancer effects in the general population. If you do not have cancer the cost benefit analysis is not the same.

[Scuba]

1. But it is good for your morale. n/t

[fascisthunter]

2. ahhh... ok

abstract indeed

[Webster Green]

3. Cost benefit analysis?

Prices are way down around here. These hills are loaded with pot.

The benefits are too numerous to list.

[usregimechange]

5. Sounds better than magic elixir.

[Webster Green]

6. It seems to be exactly that.

And that's without even going into all the uses for industrial hemp.

Cannabis is arguably the most beneficial plant known to man. The taboo against it's use is just absurd.

[usregimechange]

8. If a rational observer were to think that you exaggerate the benefits and minimize the cons

would you suspect that those thinking errors were at all related to getting stoned? The alcoholic who gets a DWI after all was only driving a couple blocks and his alcohol is legal and is good for the heart.

[Webster Green]

10. Well...what an idiotic analogy.

I believe the "thinking errors" would be on the part of your so-called "rational observer".

I am not exaggerating the benefits at all. The fact that you are uneducated regarding the many and varied uses of cannabis is pretty obvious. Also, your 'Reefer Madness'/'Dragnet' perception of what being stoned is all about, makes it clear that you've never even tried the stuff. A lot of people who could really use a little pot are too scared to try it. What a shame.

Closed-minded regressives like yourself continue to deny us the full benefits of this amazing plant. That is very sad.

There's a reason why our brains are hard wired with THC receptors. Can you guess what it is? :hippie:

[usregimechange]

12. I don't need to guess, "THC receptors" also bind to other endogenous compounds

But I bet you didn't look that up because that would make your magic elixir a little less magical.

[Webster Green]

16. whatever

lame beyond belief, and hopelessly brainwashed. very sad.

[usregimechange]

19. Did you give up the then why is there a THC receptor argument?

[Webster Green]

23. Nah, I just got bored with your reefer madness bullshit.

:boring:

[usregimechange]

24. You can misrepresent my position as "reefer madness" all you want but it only indicates that...

you lack intellectual courage without an army of strawmen at your side.

[Occulus]

13. When you equated alcohol to cannabis you told me everything I needed to know about your position

That was a really silly analogy. I mean, seriously. THC is not anywhere near as toxic as alcohol.

[usregimechange]

18. I wasn't comparing toxicity, I was comparing the use of rationalization

[wtbymark]

4. The 'cost benefit analysis' of poking smot hahahaha

that's why it's 'illegal', the powers that be don't want you to realize that thought.

[MindPilot]

7. What the hell happened to the idea of being able to do something

for no other justification than...it feels good?

[usregimechange]

9. When that feeling good becomes addictive and becomes more important than family, freedom, and health

society began to take a step back, granted too far back but a step or two seems reasonable to me.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SOS]

15. DSM-V will be removing the "cannabis dependence" diagnosis

"Cannabis dependence" in the DSM-IV was based on the alcohol dependence model that was later generalized to drugs by the World Health Organization.
But since "cannabis dependence" does not exist, the APA will be removing that diagnosis in the DSM-V.
The new diagnosis will be "cannabis use disorder".

On the Henningfield Scale, cannabis is deemed less addictive than caffeine.

Yes, coffee drinkers and cannabis users may get a little cranky when the cupboard is bare.

But to say substances like caffeine and cannabis are "addictive" in the way alcohol and opiates are addictive is ludicrous.

[usregimechange]

17. Under that proposal, which you misrepresented, you can still Specify "With Physiological Dependence"

No where does it say that cannabis dependence does not exits.

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=454

[Occulus]

21. You could say the same about religion or Diet Coke

What exactly is your point? Oh yes, your point is that 'cannabis is a dangerous substance that should remain regulated', to which I reply, bullshit.

[usregimechange]

22. I'll make my own points thank you but I'll have to disagree about religion causing physiological

dependence. You could make a good argument about how religion can lead to psychological dependence and even that it is a public health risk but it does not lead to physiological dependence. People who are religious fanatics do not have physical symptoms when they miss church. Now, you could argue that the physical symptoms accompanying cannabis withdrawal are not clinically significant but not that it does not happen. Does it happen less frequently than many other substances? Yes, but it does happen with long term heavy use and it's been documented in research for years.

[SOS]

28. Again, the diagnosis "cannabis dependence" is being removed

It will be replaced with "cannabis use disorder".

How many doctors will specify with physiological dependence?
Yes, the specification is an option in the DSM-V proposal, but cannabis does not produce the two criteria (tolerance and withdrawal) in
any significant way (see Henningfield Scale or Benowitz Scale).

I went through severe alcohol withdrawal in 1992. I was in a hospital for week with DTs, seizures, shakes and vomiting.
Now that's physiological dependence. (Haven't had a drink since).
Living in NYC for 50 years, I've seen more than one friend go through heroin withdrawal.
It's just as bad.

To use the word "dependence" so loosely is clearly what the DSM-V is addressing in it's revision.

Addiction has five markers: withdrawal, reinforcement, tolerance, dependence and intoxication.
Using those markers, both Hennigfield and Benowitz rate cannabis and caffeine as the least addictive.

My point here is that it belittles real physical addiction (ie alcohol and opiates) to use the same terminology with substances like coffee and cannabis.
Apparently the APA agrees.

[usregimechange]

29. So which is it "least addictive" or not addictive at all? It can't be both.

Under DSM-IV-TR, there are 7 criteria for dependence, you have to have 3 to be considered dependent, 2 of which are tolerance and withdrawal. So you can have no tolerance or withdrawal at all and still be plenty dependent. Also, these are proposed draft revisions not revisions that have been approved. Also, you are not reading this right. Alcohol dependence has also been proposed to be subsumed under "Alcohol-Use Disorder."

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=36

So you have not described the reasoning for this suggestion correctly. It isn't because cannabis is not addictive, it would allow all substance related disorders to be rated on a scale that is not bi-axial (dependence or abuse).

[Warren DeMontague]

14. And what's the cost benefit analysis of spending $40B a year to imprison people for getting high?

The drug war is a fucking sham. Legalize, regulate, and tax it already.

[usregimechange]

20. It is a sham and a huge waste of money

[Tsiyu]

25. Gee, Ya Think?

You know, all cannabis users are dumbasses who now believe lighting up (or scarfing down) means they will never get cancer!

Like, no cannabis user knows ANY other cannabis user who got cancer at some point!

Those tokers are all dumbasses who must have basic scientific facts pointed out to them!

Thank goodness you got here just in time...there's no telling what those cannabis users might do without this stunning insight you've offered.

Thank you sooooo much.




:crazy:

[usregimechange]

26. Research like this has been used by some recreational users to support their often inaccurate

portrayal of cannabis as being supremely positive in its effects including in this thread (i.e. magic elixir).

My point is that its effects are more nuanced than that portrayal.

[usregimechange]

27. No where did I say that cannabis users are stupid.

I'd appreciate interaction around what I am actually saying. By the way is that a cannabis profile picture? :-)