What This Country Needs Is a Marijuana Summit

Dr. David Bearman, the author of this article, is one of the few unscrupulous doctors in the Santa Barbara community who is facilitating drug addiction to our youth because his personal agendas are overpowering his judgment and causing him to ignore his Hippocratic oath. Any young person can go into his office, make up any excuse as to why they think they "medically" need marijuana and Dr. Bearman will write them a recommendation for marijuana. Dr. Bearman has absolutely no imperial data, nor legitimate justification (moral or otherwise) for the majority of the recommendations he writes. Dr. Bearman is a drug dealer and, if he really cared about the health of our children, he would stop participating in this marijuana scam but he, obviously, doesn't care about true health just whatever political agenda he is pushing. He will claim otherwise but the proof is in the huge increase in marijuana use in our communities' youth youth that, absolutely do not need to be smoking the harmful drug, marijuana. Dr. Bearman, I rebuke you and your evil and abhorrent actions.

I believe he is honoring his oath. He is following a multitude of clinical evidence that shows cannabis to be safer than many alternatives. If you want data just browse on by to the National Institute Of Health's website.

It's very hard to get "imperial" data. Especially on teh internets.

Quite an amazing indictment handed down by "cazador"; impervious to reasoned argument, and cloaked in a seething righteous anger.

Note to "cazador": by definition licensed medical doctors are "drug dealers."

cazador

What age are the "youth" you refer to? If they are over 18, they are adults and deemed capable of making their own decisions. I seriously doubt Dr. Bearman has recommended marijuana for anyone under 18 unless there was a very serious need for it.

Every major government study has found marijuana is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol. Society needs to act accordingly.

Dr.Bearman has years of evidence, studies and his own experiences to back him up. It's not a secret anymore.

What cazador is saying is like saying writing an article saying beer gets you drunk, without quoting any studies, makes it false.

It's not nearly as bad as alcohol, tobacco, Rx drugs, and even caffeine. The old false claims of it being a gateway drug have long since been disproved.

If cazador was truly informed, he/she would know the ban on Marijuana came as a result of racism, and had nothing to do with it's actual effects.

Listen dudes and dudettes, marijuana makes you stupid as dirt when you smoke it too young. So whatever "ideology" is behind this article, we ought to at least regulate it like a controlled substance.

No prescription--no smoke. (And forget about under 21.)

Beyond that, if Obama's own dumb as dirt choices are any indication, I'd steer clear of the stuff unless absolutely necessary. (Who knows, maybe it's not just ciggies the Prez is smoking.)

That said, MJ did help a TERMINAL cancer patient I know alleviate her nausea. Caution is the operative word here, and this article was pathetically unsubstantiated.

But that's no surprise. After all, Obama is your Tripper-in-Chief: A prime example of his brilliance:

LOS ANGELES (Los Angeles Times) - Van Jones, the onetime Marxist whose controversial statements about Republicans and 9/11 have made him a distracting lightning rod as Barack Obama's environmental jobs czar in recent days, resigned tonight.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House environmental policy adviser who specialized in "green jobs" resigned on Sunday after an uproar over his previous affiliation with a September 11 conspiracy group. Van Jones, special adviser on green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, apologized on Thursday after videotape surfaced of him using a crude epithet to describe Republicans and amid revelations he had signed a petition suggesting U.S. government involvement in the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) - President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday. Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

KEEP ON TOKIN' loyal followers -- Just keep it away from MY kids and MY neighborhood (and don't be setting "cooking fires" like the illlegal idiots who set the La Brea fire. NOT COOL.)

Keep it regulated like a prescription drug, available ONLY from reputable doctors, and we'll be fine.

Peace, brother.

Wow... Taking Sativex equating to crude marijuana and the the other 400+ chemicals. Sativex is going through the riggers of the FDA and if approved it will be a modern medicine not snake oil of the drug culture

cazador makes valid points, although quite impassioned. I'm glad to see that the good doctor finally lifted the final veil from his true agenda. That incremental "medical" excuse was quite transparent, much like countries who claim they are just building nuke facilities for electricity (yeah right).

Yes there may be some people who can benefit from smoking pot, but in a community that outlaws gas lawn tools, whines in self righteous indignation about open air cig smoke and eating meat, how is it not contradictory thought?

And why such ZEAL over this? Sounds to me like he needs a horse drawn wagon, a top hat and a schtick.

http://www.veltd.net/valmin/imgvalmin...

An advocate for the happy weed. What would one expect from an M.D. deep in the heart of I.V.? Material here for movie.

Want to solve the budget crisis? Legalize, regulate, and tax it like tobacco. Alcohol is far more dangerous and yet it's available all over the place. I can even go to a wine or beer tasting room, drink, then hop in my car!

Ask law enforcement, many of them support legalization.

And no, I'm not one who partakes myself, I just see the logic in stopping a fight that we're further from winning after decades of trying and that is based on information that is many decades old.

The reason it is difficult to use statistics about the good (and bad) medicinal purposes of marijuana is because the government restricts its use in scientific testing--as Bearman clearly states in his last paragraph. It's time for society to mature and recognize that pot is no worse than alcohol, cigarettes and most of the wacky big pharma-created drugs that are crammed down our throats both by doctors and pervasive advertising.

Thank you Dr. Bearman for your active stance on this matter. It is a benefit to all that existence not be restricted by outdated views and policies concerning the mind and body and the natural substances which aid in the creation of balance thereupon. Health research is an on-going endeavor; there are benefits to be found almost everywhere. Those who think otherwise limit themselves and their fellow human beings from improving the quality of life each person deserves and which each must facilitate. Not doing so speaks to an ignorance and arrogance befitting only shame.

That's right, encourage our youth to improve the quality of their life by smoking pot! Mindless advice from the clearly mindless.

I am in a position to deal with the youth that Dr. Bearman is supplying marijuana to. I have come across hundreds of college age people who have these "recommendation" forms from doctors such as Bearman. The forms have a blank line where the doctor, or sometimes the young person, will write in what their claimed need is for the drug. I have seen "headaches", "menstrual cramps", "dislocated shoulder", "sore throat", etc. There is no justification to be giving these young people (or any healthy adult) marijuana for these ailments. These "recommendations" last, usually, about one year. Why in the world would someone need weed for a year for a dislocated shoulder? Because these are excuses to just give people drugs. This is a dishonorable practice. There are no dosages on these "recommendations" - Just smoke as much as you want?! This is not the manner in which REAL medication is prescribed. . One young person I came across had some serious medical conditions and the real medication he got from his regular doctor reacted badly with the pot he got from his marijuana dealing doctor who apparently didn't care about what other medication the kid was taking. The supposed data supporting the administration of weed for ailments is, primarily, based on antidotal experiences of the drug user and often conducted in countries under questionable analysis procedures. I don't care if a person, who is on their death bed from cancer, smokes pot to feel the euphoric effects of the THC in their last days - fine, let this person smoke pot. BUT what has happened is a completely different situation where any healthy person can go in, participate in this scam, and get the drug just because they want to get high. I have inspected several apartments which were rented by college age students where the apartment was, basically, a drug use den. Strewn about the apartment were many empty marijuana bottles from Dispensaries. I have found that, one person goes in and gets the doctor's recommendation, then goes around to all of the Dispensaries in town, buys as much weed as they can get their hands on, and takes it back to their buddies where they had smoke outs. Feel free to castigate me as much as you want but your attempts to paint Bearman as a medical marijuana savior are in direct contradiction to the facts whether you want to believe them or not. The point stands, if he truly believed in the value of marijuana he would stop giving marijuana to all the people who don't "need" marijuana. He has a completely different agenda from medically helping the public.

Please, if these previous facts are correct, clearly what we don't need is a summit on marijuana, and what we really need is a summit of responsible M.D.s to come forth and cope with an investigation concerning this kind of irresponsibility coming from a representative of their profession. For the safety of the students, our children, whom we entrust to those in a position to influence and to guide while away from home.

bronc

>>>"marijuana makes you stupid as dirt when you smoke it too young."

Once again, we have straw man arguments. No reformer is advocating for minors to use ANY kind of recreational drugs, marijuana or any other. The issue is about responsible adults. Alcohol is more damaging to teens than marijuana. Does that mean we should throw adult alcohol consumers in jail to try and prevent kids from getting it? --- Nonsense.

>>>"keep it away from MY kids and MY neighborhood"

If you don't want your kids in the world, keep them home all the time. Otherwise, do this thing they call "teaching." The neighborhood you live in doesn't belong just to you, of course. It belongs to ALL the neigbors. Try not inflict your bigotry on them. 56 percent of Californians now want an end to marijuana prohibition.

maximum

>>>"Taking Sativex equating to crude marijuana and the the other 400+ chemicals. Sativex is going through the riggers of the FDA and if approved it will be a modern medicine not snake oil of the drug culture"

You should study a little before you make proclamations like that. Sativex is just whole marijuana converted into liquid form. So, it has all the chemicals raw marijuana has.

stevensteiner

>>>"in a community that outlaws gas lawn tools, whines in self righteous indignation about open air cig smoke and eating meat, how is it not contradictory thought?"

It's not contradictory thought because smoke is really a side issue. Marijuana can be consumed in food, drink and by vaporization. Even 90 percent of smoking is done in private homes. No one is saying marijuana should be consumed in densely concentrated public spaces. -- Another straw man argument.

samuel

>>>"encourage our youth to improve the quality of their life by smoking pot!"

Do you live in a sealed-off sphere, or want "our youth" to? Mankind has been consuming both alcohol AND marijuana for at least 3,000 years. Why do encourage the consumption of the far more harmful one instead of the near harmless one? Most importantly, we need to tell "our youth" the truth. If we lie about marijuana, they discover it quickly and then don't believe our warnings about the hard drugs.

>>>"The supposed data supporting the administration of weed for ailments is, primarily, based on antidotal experiences of the drug user"

LOL! - We wouldn't want people misusing antidotes, now would we? 8^)

The great body of research and countless medical organizations have endorsed medical marijuana. Should we believe them, or.... Samuel? -- Gee. That's a tough one.

Let's address the real issue, shall we? Why do you think non-addictive, near harmless marijuana should be prohibited - to ANY adults?

It's weird; I keep thinking this is the 21st century... but they keep dragging me back to the 1950s!!!

John Thomas. In your eagerness to point out your opinions, and clearly that is all they are, you have omitted to remember that others have the right to theirs. Also you neither take the time to read the comments properly, nor do you interpret those remarks correctly and attaching your replies in a patronising and uneven fashion. I do not believe most people here are inferring that the weed should be banned to all adults. It is possible people would be satisfied if the decision to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes is regulated and clearly mapped out through legal and professional channels;and not handed out will-nilly and under the counter by a physician simply because he feels it convenient to do so.

samuel

>>>"In your eagerness to point out your opinions, and clearly that is all they are,"

No. I have been at this so long, I don't provide detailed documentation for every point I make. I can easily do so, so any point you would like more facts about, just ask.

>>>"you have omitted to remember that others have the right to theirs."

Where have I done that? Ridiculous.

>>>"Also you neither take the time to read the comments properly, nor do you interpret those remarks correctly and attaching your replies in a patronising and uneven fashion."

More absurdity. If you disagee with a point, say so. You're just spinning your wheels trying to attack the messenger.

>>>"I do not believe most people here are inferring that the weed should be banned to all adults."

Some are, and their fallacious positions need to be addressed since that monstrous persecution is now in effect.

>>>"It is possible people would be satisfied if the decision to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes is regulated and clearly mapped out through legal and professional channels;and not handed out will-nilly and under the counter by a physician simply because he feels it convenient to do so."

Californians have the law they want. 56 percent (and growing) of all Californians now want an end to marijuana prohibition. A very liberal medical marijuana policy is one way of getting around the fraudulent law maintaining the the American Inquisition.

GIL KERLIKOSKI IS AN IDIOT AS A FATHER

TELL KIDS THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUGS

I have a 23-year-old son who is a success and has never tried pot.

But the drug czar ( Gil Kerlikowske ) has a son who was jailed for marijuana sales and assault.

The drug czar has been an anti drug use zealot for all his life, yet his kid has chosen to smoke a little pot and make money off of it.

My 23-year-old son was always told the truth about medical use of marijuana. ( I have hepatitis C and use and grow medical marijuana. )

Kerlikowske's son grew up with all the lies his father told him.

I think my son turned out better. He has never decided to drink or smoke anything. And he is a success! And he votes in favor of marijuana being legalized.

United States citizens have never had a chance to have a say about what we choose to put into our own bodies; that time is NOW.

Please legalize medical marijuana for everyone who needs it for their health around the country.

I am counting on YOU to make it legal for once in my life. Before I die from Hep-C.

Thank you very much!

Darral Good

Shoreline

US WA: PUB LTE: Tell Kids The Truth About Drugs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n6...

Personally I'm sick of living under the tyranny of people like "Maximum" and "Cazador" on just about any topic one could mention, with people like that on the streets- no wonder people turn to drugs of all kinds, legal or otherwise. Thank you Dr. Bearman for your courage and efforts.
Ken Volok

EZK

Right! -- Professor Julian Heicklen never tried or cared about marijuana. But when he retired in the late 90s, he decided the most important thing he could do was to lead marijuana smokeouts at the Gates of Penn State every Thursday for a year. Of course, he was arrested several times. When asked why was doing this, he said:

"Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we live in freedom or tyranny!"

I have lectured extensively to drug rehab groups. The addicts have been very candid with me about their addiction to marijuana. Other illegal drugs have a higher level of addiction than marijuana but, just because there are drugs with higher addiction levels than marijuana, doesn't nullify the negative effects of marijuana nor the fact that it is addictive. THC levels in marijuana are significantly higher than 30 years ago thus people are getting higher doses of this psychoactive substance when they smoke marijuana. Additionally, marijuana has, comparing the same weights, 3 times more of the tar, nicotine, and other detrimental substances in it than tobacco has. Many marijuana smokers use tobacco in between their marijuana hits to feed the nicotine addiction they have developed . The truth is that there are many negative medical effects of marijuana thus very few medical doctors participate in the "recommendation" to use marijuana - they know the truth - while marijuana is not some great evil (this concept is better used with methamphetamine) marijuana, nonetheless, should not be used as it is being used and should not be "recommended" as it is being recommended by a small number of doctors in our community who, for various reasons, are participating in the fraud --- a fraud that is hurting many people and affecting their lives and health.

--- Hysteria:

"Finding I: The United States is spending nearly 300 times what it did 35 years ago on drug control. Drug control spending rose from $65 million in 1969 to $19 billion in 2003...."

"...Leading national indicators of drug use and drug violations will show that:
1) there is no clear relationship between drug arrests and drug use, and that
2) the impact of increased arrests, convictions and incarcerations of people for marijuana offenses has significant and measurable "collateral consequences" on communities and individuals."

http://www.csdp.org/research/efficacy...

--- Priorities:

++ Annual Causes of Death in the United States ++

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

cazador

>>>"it is addictive."

Simply a lie. The core of addiction is severe withdrawal symptoms that compel continued use to avoid those symptoms. Marijuana doesn't have them.

>>>"THC levels in marijuana are significantly higher than 30 years ago thus people are getting higher doses of this psychoactive substance when they smoke marijuana."

Wrong again. More potent pot just means people smoke less of it. That's healthier because people consume less smoke for the same high.

>>>"marijuana has, comparing the same weights, 3 times more of the tar, nicotine, and other detrimental substances in it than tobacco has."

But marijuana consumers consume about 1/100th the amount of smoke tobacco smokers do, making that exposure negligible. People standing on a busy street corner inhale more harmful smoke than a someone inhaling a couple of puffs of pot. --- Plus, research has shown marijuana has anti-tumoral and anti-inflammatory properties, so it actually protects the lungs.

>>>"Many marijuana smokers use tobacco in between their marijuana hits to feed the nicotine addiction they have developed."

To feed the nicotine addiction they have developed from smoking marijuana? Sorry, marijuana has no nicotene. Smoking tobacco is a different subject. Don't confuse a harmful habit with a near harmless one, please.

>>>"there are many negative medical effects of marijuana"

Wrong. Smoking pot only causes minor lung irritation. Using a vaporizer removes even that problem. As the DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concuded after an exhaustive review of the evidence, "Marijuana, in its natural state, is one of the safest therapuetically active substances known to man."

>>>"thus very few medical doctors participate in the "recommendation" to use marijuana"

No. Doctors don't recommend marijuana because they fear losing their license from DEA terrorists and others.

Here are some respected medical organizations that endorse medical marijuana:

International and National Organizations

AIDS Action Council
AIDS Treatment News
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Preventive Medical Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
Arthritis Research Campaign (United Kingdom)
Australian Medical Association (New South Wales) Limited
Australian National Task Force on Cannabis
Belgian Ministry of Health
British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology
British House of Lords Select Committee On Science and Technology (Second Report)
British Medical Association
Canadian AIDS Society
Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
Dr. Dean Edell (surgeon and nationally syndicated radio host)
French Ministry of Health
Health Canada
Kaiser Permanente
Lymphoma Foundation of America
The Montel Williams MS Foundation
Multiple Sclerosis Society (Canada)
The Multiple Sclerosis Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences Institute Of Medicine (IOM)
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Nurses Society on Addictions
Netherlands Ministry of Health
New England Journal of Medicine
New South Wales (Australia) Parliamentary Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes
Dr. Andrew Weil (nationally recognized professor of internal medicine and founder of the National Integrative Medicine Council)

(More)

State and Local Organizations

Alaska Nurses Association
Being Alive: People With HIV/AIDS Action Committee (San Diego, CA)
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Nurses Association
California Pharmacists Association
Colorado Nurses Association
Connecticut Nurses Association
Florida Governor's Red Ribbon Panel on AIDS
Florida Medical Association
Hawaii Nurses Association
Illinois Nurses Association
Life Extension Foundation
Medical Society of the State of New York
Mississippi Nurses Association
New Jersey State Nurses Association
New Mexico Medical Society
New Mexico Nurses Association
New York County Medical Society
New York State Nurses Association
North Carolina Nurses Association
Rhode Island Medical Society
Rhode Island State Nurses Association
San Francisco Mayor's Summit on AIDS and HIV
San Francisco Medical Society
Vermont Medical Marijuana Study Committee
Virginia Nurses Association
Whitman-Walker Clinic (Washington, DC)
Wisconsin Nurses Association

Additional AIDS Organizations

The following organizations are signatories to a February 17, 1999 letter to the US Department of Health petitioning the federal government to "make marijuana legally available : to people living with AIDS."

AIDS Action Council
AIDS Foundation of Chicago
AIDS National Interfaith Network (Washington, DC)
AIDS Project Arizona
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Being Alive: People with HIV/AIDS Action Committee (San Diego, CA)
Boulder County AIDS Project (Boulder, CO)
Colorado AIDS Project
Center for AIDS Services (Oakland, CA)
Health Force: Women and Men Against AIDS (New York, NY)
Latino Commission on AIDS
Mobilization Against AIDS (San Francisco, CA)
Mothers Voices to End AIDS (New York, NY)
National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender Association
National Native American AIDS Prevention Center
Northwest AIDS Foundation
People of Color Against AIDS Network (Seattle, WA)
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Whitman-Walker Clinic (Washington, DC)

(More)

Other Health Organizations

The following organizations are signatories to a June 2001 letter to the US Department of Health petitioning the federal government to "allow people suffering from serious illnesses : to apply to the federal government for special permission to use marijuana to treat their symptoms."

Addiction Treatment Alternatives
AIDS Treatment Initiatives (Atlanta, GA)
American Public Health Association
American Preventive Medical Association
Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights (San Francisco, CA)
California Legislative Council for Older Americans
California Nurses Association
California Pharmacists Association
Embrace Life (Santa Cruz, CA)
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Hawaii Nurses Association
Hepatitis C Action and Advisory Coalition
Life Extension Foundation
Maine AIDS Alliance
Minnesota Nurses Association
Mississippi Nurses Association
National Association of People with AIDS
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Women's Health Network
Nebraska AIDS Project
New Mexico Nurses Association
New York City AIDS Housing Network
New York State Nurses Association Ohio Patient Network Okaloosa AIDS Support and Information Services (Fort Walton, FL)
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Oregon
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Virginia Nurses Association
Wisconsin Nurses Association

Health Organizations Supporting Medical Marijuana Research

International and National Organizations

American Cancer Society
American Medical Association
British Medical Journal
California Medical Association
California Society on Addiction Medicine
Congress of Nursing Practice
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Jamaican National Commission on Ganja
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana
Texas Medical Association
Vermont Medical Society
Wisconsin State Medical Society

"I have lectured extensively to drug rehab groups. The addicts have been very candid with me about their addiction to marijuana. Other illegal drugs have a higher level of addiction than marijuana but, just because there are drugs with higher addiction levels than marijuana, doesn't nullify the negative effects of marijuana nor the fact that it is addictive. THC levels in marijuana are significantly higher than 30 years ago thus people are getting higher doses of this psychoactive substance when they smoke marijuana. Additionally, marijuana has, comparing the same weights, 3 times more of the tar, nicotine, and other detrimental substances in it than tobacco has. Many marijuana smokers use tobacco in between their marijuana hits to feed the nicotine addiction they have developed ."

I'm curious whether you've compared these addicted pot smokers to anyone addicted to LEGAL alcohol and tobacco? Why are those legal and weed isn't? How many times do stoned people get into fights and cause trouble versus drunk ones?

Another point - the recent La Brea fire was started due to an illegal weed grow. There's been violence associated with the illegal weed grows (body found on Hwy 154 a couple years ago as a local example). If we want to take the Mexican Mafia type illegal operations out of the area, how about make weed totally legal and cut the bottom out of the market? It would cut the enforcement costs, help the gov't through taxes, and give farmers another crop t help the bottom line. If people could legally buy it, there'd be no need for this scary and growing issue in our forests.

Again I say, ask law enforcement whether they are winning, ever will win, and support legalization or not.

Most in law enforcement are afraid to state their true beliefs about marijuana. They could lose their jobs. If you want to find out how they feel, check with L.E.s that are mostly retired, here:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Clearly those who denounce the efficacy of this plant to treat particular physical states of being, as evidenced by several of these postings, have ventured into a myriad of other topics which confuse the purpose of THC research and regimens altogether. Only a demonstrated lack of mindfulness could lead these individuals down such irrational avenues of expressed repression. It appears, then, the greatest obstacle is this loud group of narrow-minded fist-wavers.

How many people a year die from driving a car after being under the influence of marijuana?

"Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana."

To say that people don't die each year because of Marijuana is a lie, pure and simple.

If Marijuana becomes legal two things will be true, we will be a worse off society because of it and we will not be able to EVER make it illegal again. Oh and those that think it will solve our tax problem... keep smoking it, the adverse effect on medical costs and health problems far out way what ever little tax we can collect.

And for those that always like to point out "but cigarettes and alcohol is bad and that is legal" argument; I suppose you also think everyone should be able to own hand grenades and bazookas because guns are legal? Yeah good point there.

So some people figure they can use the bait and switch tactic and take the focus away from the main issue.

Attacking Dr.Bearmen for what he believes isn't the topic of this article. Don't take your kids to see him then. It's a free country. The fact is he is saying we need to consider this, and look into it. But as it was pointed out, the government doesn't allow this to happen.

How about the US Government lets doctors and hospitals do tests and find out for 100% sure what the benefits and risks are?

And lets recall why marijuana was originally banned: It was racism, pure and simple. It was racism against blacks and Mexican immigrants. It had nothing to do AT ALL with the plant itself.

I'd rather do my time researching this topic rather then doing what churches do, and trying to circumvent logic and reasoning to convince people their believes are wrong, rather that why you're a right.

CitizenWLR

>>>"Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana." -- To say that people don't die each year because of Marijuana is a lie."

Neither I, nor any marijuana reformer I know, have said nobody has ever died because of driving while intoxicated by marijuana. I'm sure there has probably been a very few incidents of it - especially for novice smokers who haven't learned how to deal with marijuana totally. What we HAVE said, and what is born out by the research is, that marijuana is not a SIGNIFICANT cause of traffic accidents. The "tests" you speak of indicate only that someone has consumed marijuana some time in the last few weeks. Neither do they indicate intoxication level. Since 100 million Americans have smoked pot, it's only logical that any large group of people will contain a certain amount of people, say 4 to 14 percent, who were marijuana consumers. This DOES NOT mean their marijuana use caused the accident - anymore than if someone had a drink a week ago, it caused their accident tonight.

>>>"If Marijuana becomes legal two things will be true, we will be a worse off society because of it and we will not be able to EVER make it illegal again."

Wrong again. We already have data from places where marijuana has been re-legalized, and the data is all good. Crime and violence are down greatly, and there is no increase in traffic accidents. Indeed, there is not even an increase in marijuana usage. In the Netherlands, where small amounts are legal for possession and sale, they have HALF the rate of marijuana use as the U.S. Forbidden fruit is a strong attraction. You haven't given a good reason for it to ever become "illegal" again, so that's not really a worry.

>>>"the adverse effect on medical costs and health problems far out way what ever little tax we can collect."

That would be pretty strange considering marijuana use will probably go down. The effects on medical cost will be a soaring improvement, since there will be no more gun-battles over sales turf. And patients will be able to be honest with their doctors and tell them about their marijuana use. The only real change will be that some alcohol consumers will switch to marijuana. That will benefit them AND society in the great savings from the ravages of chronic alcohol use.

>>>"And for those that always like to point out "but cigarettes and alcohol is bad and that is legal" argument; I suppose you also think everyone should be able to own hand grenades and bazookas because guns are legal? Yeah good point there."

Bad analogy. Since tobacco and alcohol are far more harmful than marijuana, the analogy would be, "Since hand grenades and bazookas are legal, guns should be legal." That logic wouldn't disturb any rational person.

Sorry, CitizenWLR. Obviously, that last post was meant to be directed to InTheKnow.

Look, if someone is in unbearable pain because of a terminal illness, give them whatever they want. If someone can't eat right and has to spark one up to induce the munchies, there are better solutions and treatments than inhaling ditchweed smoke (besides, it leaves a carbon footprint).

azureness

>>>"If someone can't eat right and has to spark one up to induce the munchies, there are better solutions and treatments than inhaling ditchweed smoke"

Ditchweed smoke? No. Few people choose that. Nature's amazing herb, cannabis, is what many choose. Who are you, or anyone, to decide that for another person?

>>>"besides, it leaves a carbon footprint."

No it doesn't. Some large scale processing and consumption creates a very small carbon shadow, but even those can be easily avoided by someone who grows their own. In fact, using hemp for raw material, nutrition and energy will REDUCE carbon footprints considerably.

If it weren't for the brave doctors who hand out these licenses, I would never have found a way to continue my line of work without pain and without the side effects of some over the counter drug that might cause internal bleeding, erectile disfunction, headaches, nausea, back pain, nose bleeds, or loss of feeling in hands and feet. This herb has the capacity to put many a wealthy drug maker out of business because of its widespread healing properties, and it grows so easily. At this point in the argument, I would like to call out the naysayers as pawns of the drug industry that brought us dangerous pills such as Zoloft and other mind controlling substances that leave you with worse side effects than your initial problem. Also, those with children should know that as a teenager it was easier for me to acquire enough liqour and beer to kill myself in one sholder tap than to get my hands on some dirty low quality weed. y'all should be fearing the drunks and pill poppers. Their addiction requires robbing, shooting, begging and the loss of self worth when they hit bottom. When a stoner hits bottom, you can find them at your neighborhood fast food establishment (another blight on our health more addictive than pot.)

spacey

>>>"I would like to call out the naysayers as pawns of the drug industry that brought us dangerous pills such as Zoloft and other mind controlling substances that leave you with worse side effects than your initial problem."

You bring up a good point. Who are these people that come to these forums with so many claims against cannabis? Yes. Some are people who are genuinely misinformed and operating from prejudice. But I'm sure many are shills for industries and government that stand a lot to lose when the fraud of marijuana prohibition ends.

Examples would be: law enforcement, prosecutors, prisons, probationers, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries, drug testing/"treatment" industries, marginal corporations that only exist because of the cartel money they launder, and corrupt government that uses marijuana prohibition to control dissenters, minorities and the poor - as well as a pretext to destabilize countries that do not bow to U.S. corporations.

They have no concern for the suffering of millions they cause - as long as it keeps their cruel golden goose a-laying.

Thank you Dr. Bearman! You are fighting the good fight. Who are these hopeless, mindless goons who can't come to terms with the fact that marijuana is already all around us?! High school students consistently report that it's easier for them to procure marijuana than alcohol.

What kind of misinformed enemy of the state makes the argument that we must keep marijuana ILLEGAL in the express interest of protecting our children?! What total and complete mind-control propagandist rubbish to suggest that marijuana is better kept out of the hands of the young by keeping it in a DE-regulated black market? Ha! Have some pride, America. Recognize that those who argue in support of keeping marijuana illegal are insulting your intelligence and withholding a powerful cancer-fighting substance from the public, for the benefit of corporate pharmaceutical behemoths who want to drug you with a dangerous synthetic cocktail of their own copyrighted creation. Can't patent a plant, folks. I wonder why the drug companies don't want straight laced average Joe Blow to know how much help they could receive from a plant.

What total, complete inept failures the drug-war-generation is! They put forward inane, contradictory, and cyclical reasoning and expect that they won't be called out on it. Shills indeed. Mindless drones. Don't let feigned prestige drill falsehoods into yet another generation!

Those who argue against absolute legal access to marijuana for adult use are wholly ignorant or morally compromised; and ironically they either do already, or would receive immense benefit from its use. Pay no mind to fascist tools. Keep it simple, stupid. Keep your laws off my body.

Legalization is coming. Vote, California! Legalize it for the SAFETY of our children!

EXCERPTED FROM:
"But What about the Children?"

[from: "Marijuana is SAFER: So why are we driving people to drink?" - ISBN: 1603581448]

[GET THE BOOK AND READ IT]

As mentioned previously, implementing legal yet restricted access to cannabis is not necessarily associated with increased marijuana consumption among young people. (To repeat, marijuana use by young people fell in California following the enactment of laws allowing for the sale of cannabis to qualified adults.) Let us explain why we believe this is the case. One, even under our current system of criminal marijuana prohibition, almost 90 percent of teenagers report on government surveys that marijuana is easy to get. In fact, many high school surveys indicate that teens can more readily purchase illicit cannabis than buy alcohol or tobacco, both of which are legally available to adults but cannot be sold to children. One study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) even reported that 23 percent of teens said that they could buy pot in an hour or less.*5 That means nearly a quarter of all teens can already get marijuana about as easily - and as quickly - as a Domino's pizza! In truth, no system we can think of could possibly provide our children with greater access to cannabis than the system we already have in place: prohibition.

That said, we are not going to deny that some young people will still gain access to marijuana under a regulated system, just as some young people today have access to alcohol. Of course those who do will be obtaining a regulated product of known quality that is sold from a state-licensed retail outlet. This scenario, while hardly ideal, is still far better than the situation that exists today where millions of children are purchasing an unregulated product of unknown quality from millions of unlicensed sellers who have a financial incentive to encourage their customers to use other illegal substances like cocaine or methamphetamine. And don't forget, under our current system of prohibition teens don't even need to possess a fake ID to buy pot.

EXCERPTED FROM:
"But What about the Children?"

[from: "Marijuana is SAFER: So why are we driving people to drink?" - ISBN: 1603581448]

[GET THE BOOK AND READ IT]

We should all keep in mind that just because someone is advocating legalizing or decriminalizing something doesn't mean they advocate using it. I do not advocate making tobacco products illegal, just restricting where it can be used and by whom. Same with guns, bullets, gas guzzling cars, high fat food etc. I avoid those things, for the most part, but don't think it is sensible to ban them totally or make them illegal. Same with pot. The current system is not working. Pot is widely available and our nation is spending BILLIONS on a so far ineffective "War on Drugs". The main beneficiaries seem to be the drug cartels and the prison guards union. Legalize it, tax it, use some of the taxes for drug education in the schools and move on to more pressing issues.

Good posts, folks. As Professor Julian Heicklen said: - "Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we will live in tyranny or freedom!"

We live in a country that is free BECAUSE of law, not free from law that would be anarchy. Just because there are people who will choose to violate a law doesn't mean that the law should be discontinued. There will always be people who will speed, steal, and murder. Shall we then eliminate all law because someone, sometime, will violate it? Of course not and, the fact that there will always be someone who wants to violate a marijuana law is an irrelevant factor as to IF there should be marijuana prohibition. You pro-legalization of marijuana people are showing your true colors. What you want is to legalize marijuana not help sick people. You have chosen the medical marijuana propaganda in an effort to achieve your real goal legalize pot so you can smoke out anytime you want. When I debated Bearman in the early 90s about his desire to have marijuana legalized, he never said ANYTHING about the supposed medical benefits of marijuana. The propaganda that he pushed then was that it was costing too much to enforce marijuana laws. Of course, as usual, he used fuzzy math, lied, etc. and the information he was putting forth was filled with inaccuracies. Years later, when the medical marijuana myth was began, Bearman then started to use this concept as propaganda to push weed. He is using, and will use, whatever myth he can find to push this drug on people so they can get high, not so he can help poor sick people. The things several of you are stating here, such as studies show marijuana is not harmful, is hogwash. You are either lying or you have seen some idiotic poll put out by some pro-marijuana organization based from in some foreign country. If marijuana had that many benefits the drug companies would jump on it in a second because they would want to make the money. The truth is that marijuana just makes you high, doesn't fix medical problems, just masks them with euphoria so there is no significant benefit to it. The drug companies did produce Marinol, a synthetic THC, but it had limited effect and the pro-marijuana propagandists claimed Marinol was no good because you couldn't SMOKE it :. Obviously, they said this because they just wanted to get high from tokin' on some herb not honestly address medical problems. Your arguments are plastic and aren't supported by logic, studies, or common sense. There are hundreds of doctors in this community why are just a handful of them recommending marijuana? Because the vast majority of doctors want to do right by their patients and not recommend to them a carcinogenic, toxic substance that simply masks their medical problems and has a large number of side effects like lowered sperm count, reduced cardiovascular ability, long term dulling of the intellect, etc. Oh, and they know that the vast majority of the people playing the medical marijuana scam are just pot heads who want to get high and the legitimate doctors don't want to be accomplices in this scam.

Just noticed Cycleboy's question my answer:
All societies, throughout history, have found substances which aided them to artificially achieve different levels of consciousness. During the last 100 years science has become aware that these substances have detrimental effects on our bodies. I can't answer why the United States has chosen alcohol and tobacco as its non-prescription, legal, drugs. Both are not good for the human body. Tobacco is very addictive because it contains nicotine which is highly addictive. Marijuana has two addictive substances in it: THC (not in tobacco) and nicotine thus, with this combination of addictive substances, marijuana is, definitely, an addictive drug. Addiction isn't the only problem with marijuana that addicts have spoken with me about. The THC in marijuana creates a layer of fatty cells around brain nerve endings, or synopsis, which dulls the function of the brain. This is what is happening when people get high. This dulling of the senses is also what causes marijuana to have the justified reputation of causing people to act stupid or with impaired senses. The problem is that this layer of fatty cells over the synopsis is progressive and, the more one smokes weed, the thicker this layer gets so, when the person isn't high, they still experience the dulling of their mental capacity. The addicts have discussed with me the change in their lifestyles from their habitual use of marijuana. They struggle with relationships, keeping jobs, and, generally, having the motivation to do anything other than lay around, smoke pot, and eat munchies. Technically, marijuana is a hallucinogen but has many depressant appearing properties therefore the type of aggression seen with a stimulant, such as methamphetamine, is not highly prevalent with marijuana influence. Nonetheless, this common pro-marijuana argument doesn't hold water because there are many other detrimental effects from marijuana use that cause negative impacts on people's lives even if they don't "get into fights". Yes, we have significant problems with alcohol and tobacco in our society but these problems with these legal drugs do not nullify the real problems we have in society because of marijuana use AS WELL as the other drugs. The medical marijuana propaganda that is being pushed is, seriously, interfering with the positive, and sober (excuse the expression), analysis of the problems associated with marijuana AND other drugs. I have, undeniably, seen a significant raise in marijuana use in our community, particularly in the young collage age populace, since the changing of the laws that have, defacto, legalized marijuana. A full legalization of marijuana would, undeniably, cause an even steeper increase in the use of marijuana just as the other two, legalized drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are the most used drugs. There is a direct correlation between the level of use of a drug and the ease of getting it. Just some simple facts.

cazador

>>>"We live in a country that is free BECAUSE of law, not free from law that would be anarchy."

Who said anything about being free from law? We're talking about the bad, fradulent, counter-productive law that is marijuana prohibition. Laws like this, are like laws that supported slavery. They are the law's worst enemy because they are widely, guiltlessly broken, thus causing widespread lack of respect for the law. Anybody who loves the law would want to banish the abomination of marijuana prohibition from the books.

>>>"Just because there are people who will choose to violate a law doesn't mean that the law should be discontinued."

100 million Americans have smoked pot. Most Americans now want an end to marijuana prohibition. Marijuana reform victories are occurring at an increasing rate in a growing list of states. It's all over but for the Neanderthal prohibitionists hanging on to their persecution racket with a death grip.

>>>"There will always be people who will speed, steal, and murder. Shall we then eliminate all law because someone, sometime, will violate it? "

Again with that absurd comparison? Equating murder to an adult smoking pot in their home? That just demonstrates how ludicrous and out of touch with reality prohibitionists are. -- No victim. No crime.

>>>"What you want is to legalize marijuana not help sick people."

The two movements are, naturally, joined at the hip. We want to do both. Nothing wrong with that. Marijuana prohibition was a monstrous fraud perpetrated by megalomaniac bureaucrat, Harry Anslinger and friends.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/H...

>>>"The propaganda that he pushed then was that it was costing too much to enforce marijuana laws."

That's not propaganda, of course. It's obvious truth. Having police spend precious time persecuting innocent Americans, is worse than calling in a false fire alarm. Think of all the REAL crimes they could be solving.

>>>"The things several of you are stating here, such as studies show marijuana is not harmful, is hogwash."

Of course not. I have provided the link to the texts of all the major government studies of marijuana. Again, they are here: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/L...

They have all concluded marijuana is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol. Most have recommended regulating marijuana like alcohol.

>>>"If marijuana had that many benefits the drug companies would jump on it in a second because they would want to make the money."

They are in other countries. The reason they are resisting it here is because they can't patent the marijuana plant, which still proves to be a better medicine than all the derivitive concoctions being pushed.

>>>"The truth is that marijuana just makes you high, doesn't fix medical problems,"

No. I have already posted scores of respected medical organizations that testify to the effectiveness of medical marijuana. ( September 6, at 5:49 p.m.) Their credibility is unassailable.

>>>"The drug companies did produce Marinol, a synthetic THC, but it had limited effect and the pro-marijuana propagandists claimed Marinol was no good because you couldn't SMOKE it."

Marinol was/is problematic because it is in pill form and cannot be titrated. - that is, adjusted to the patients level of need - which varies. Smoking allows excellent titration. Vaporization does the same thing without the minor irritation caused by smoking.

>>>"There are hundreds of doctors in this community why are just a handful of them recommending marijuana?"

We've already addressed that, too. Doctors are afraid of getting their license attacked by the DEA, and many are just afraid of the great, unholy stigma plastered onto marijuana over the last several decades.

>>>"a carcinogenic, toxic substance"

That's a lie. Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens, but marijuana is not carcinogenic or toxic. That is because marijuana consumers consume 1/100th the amount - or less - as do cigarette smokers. A person standing on busy street corner inhales more harmful smoke than the couple of puffs of pot. Also, because marijuana has powerful anti-tumoral and anti-inflammatory properties. There has been NO recorded case of cancer caused by marijuana.

>>>"lowered sperm count,"

Temporary and overblown. In the five decades of popular use of marijuana, there have been no reports of fertility problems of marijuana consumers.

>>>"reduced cardiovascular ability,"

No. Just increased heart rate, like as happens with jogging and sex.

>>>"long term dulling of the intellect, etc."

That's pure prohibitionist B.S. Shame on you.

>>>"the vast majority of the people playing the medical marijuana scam are just pot heads who want to get high"

That's not true, and if it were, so what? What's wrong with people wanting to consume a natural plant that is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol? It's the safer choice.

Once again, we see prohibitionist rants are much whining about nothing.

>>>"Marijuana has two addictive substances in it: THC (not in tobacco) and nicotine thus,"

If there is nicotine in marijuana, it is such a trace amount as to have no effect. Please site your research that supports that claim. THC is not addictive, of course. All the major government studies have concluded it.

>>>"The THC in marijuana creates a layer of fatty cells around brain nerve endings, or synopsis, which dulls the function of the brain."

I'll hand it to you, you are inventive. Of course, that's just another word for baloney. Site sources or can the garbage.

>>>"generally, having the motivation to do anything other than lay around, smoke pot, and eat munchies."

Right. Like the Ross Rebagliati, the last three presidents, Michael Phelps, half the NBA, and the 100 million hard-working Americans that have made the wiser choice of marijuana over harmful alcohol. Stuff your demonizing.

>>>"there are many other detrimental effects from marijuana use that cause negative impacts on people's lives even if they don't "get into fights".

But they all come from marijuana prohibition.

>>>"The medical marijuana propaganda that is being pushed is, seriously, interfering with the positive, and sober (excuse the expression), analysis of the problems associated with marijuana AND other drugs."

More baloney. As the major government studies show, marijuana has been analyzed to death for several decades. Only prohibitionists want to make people think it has not been.

>>>"I have, undeniably, seen a significant raise in marijuana use in our community, particularly in the young collage age populace, since the changing of the laws that have, defacto, legalized marijuana."

Collage age people are adults. It is far better they choose marijuana, which has never killed anyone in recorded history, over alcohol, which kills hundreds of thousands every year, many instantly from binge drinking - so prevalent on college campuses.

>>>"A full legalization of marijuana would, undeniably, cause an even steeper increase in the use of marijuana"

This demonstrates dishonest ignoring of points made. I have shown various times that places that have re-legalized small amounts of marijuana have less use than the U.S. The Netherlands has HALF the use of the U.S. Even here in California, the use of marijuana has gone down following the introduction of the liberal marijuana laws.

LOL. I love the idea of "imperial" data. I grew up with "Star Wars" and that initial comment led me to view the rest of the argument in terms of "rebels" vs. "The Empire". I know it's dorky, but I love imagining Cazador typing in a Darth Vader costume . I imagine the other posters who are sympathetic to Cazador's views wearing storm trooper uniforms (no offense intended to Cazador or anyone else; I don't think you're evil).

Prescriptions narcotics are more dangerous than marijuana will ever be (the death toll from prescription painkiller OD's is on the rise). For that reason, I would prefer to see marijuana prescribed more often as an alternative to commonly prescribed painkillers such as hydrocodone, oxycontin, vicoden or valium not to mention anti-depressants or anxiolytics that have wicked side-effects. Prescription opiates are true narcotics, unlike cocaine and marijuana and are more deserving of our criticism. Why are we, as a society, so complacent regarding prescription painkillers and so self-righteously opinionated when discussing marijuana legalization?

Many people here have mentioned age as a factor in obtaining a prescription for marijuana. I just wanted to add that opiates, which are highly addictive, can be prescribed to children legally.

For those of you who truly want to lead the war on drugs, I think your efforts could be better utilized by exposing the MD's who over-prescribe prescription narcotics.

Marijuana isn't the gateway drug. Beer is.

Cazador -

Here's hoping your own doctors don't withhold marijuana from you if and when you come to find that you yourself would benefit from its application.

Unless, perhaps you prefer the prospect of a slow, painful death, exacerbated by pharmeceuticals that complicate your body's immune response and slowly dose you with industrial-grade cancers.

Here's hoping your hypocrisy, blind delusion, and fascist tendencies towards persecution of your fellow man will lose out to reason, compassion, and humility with being on the wrong side of an argument that is robbing hundreds of thousands of people of their freedom.

I know you know you're on the wrong side of the argument, because no one who's actually informed enough to have ever tried marijuana could possibly put forth such utter drivel and think themselves enlightened. And no one who's never even tried marijuana is qualified to pass an intelligent opinion about its affects. You'd have to be high to think you can (or a prison guard who profiteers from the misery of non-violent drug offenders clogging the justice system). Perhaps you'd like to divulge what kind of wacky chemical cocktail it is your primary physician has got you on.

You've been lied to all your life, Cazador (lest you know the folly of every argument you're making, in which case you've been conciously lying to everyone about marijuana your entire life).

Try thinking outside the box. Not a single argument you've posed need be respected by anyone with half a wit capable of evaluating and dismissing your tripe. What a tool of the state. What a mindless government mouthpiece. What a sad, pathetic use of a human mind.

Reasonable people do not disagree about the evident truth that the War on Marijuana has done immensely far greater harm than the drug could ever be accused of. 3/4 of 1 million people given a criminal record each year for pot?!? Are you even intelligent to know how overwhelmingly huge of a percentage of the full appropriation of the criminal justice system is spent pursuing and prosecuting non-violent drug offenders?!

Zero tolerance for fascism. Zero tolerance for the mindless drivel of the over-medicated zombie drones like Cazador who make sense to no one but their fellow pill-poppers, a la Rush Limbaugh.

Cazador

>>>When I debated Bearman in the early 90s about his desire to have marijuana legalized, he never said ANYTHING about the supposed medical benefits of marijuana.

Dr. Bearman comes from a family of doctors. Dr. Bearman's father was a doctor, who was taught about the benefits of marijuana during his studies in med school in the middle of the last century. Dr. Bearman learned of the medical benefits of marijuana extolled by his own physician father. You're actually going to sit here and argue that he was not well-aware of and well-versed in marijuana's medical utility as recently as the early 1990's??? He could have argued circles around you both then and now. And I'm sure he eviscerated your position then, just as he does now.

How disingenuous are you?!?

>>> These "recommendations" last, usually, about one year....This is a dishonorable practice. There are no dosages on these "recommendations" - Just smoke as much as you want?! This is not the manner in which REAL medication is prescribed >> The THC in marijuana creates a layer of fatty cells around brain nerve endings, or synopsis, which dulls the function of the brain. <<<

No synopsis but I will offer a critique. I believe you mean neural synapse (plural: synapses).

Not sure there is much left to add. But I will.

I have a friend who is living with AIDS. He has periodically suffered from wasting syndrome and neuropathy. Marijuana has helped him.

I recently watched another friend face pancreatic cancer. He was only 49 and endured excruciating pain.

He could not keep down food and consequently began to lose his strength and the quality of what remained of his life.

He first tried prescription opiates and marinol (the synthetic marijuana in a pill) and they did nothing for him.

Then he tried some quality medicinal marijuana and it really helped him at the end of his life. It dulled his pain and allowed him to nourish himself. He even enjoyed a few meals.

What kind of society would deny anyone such help at such times?

'This dulling of the senses is also what causes marijuana to have the justified reputation of causing people to act stupid or with impaired senses.'
Now, if you replace the word 'marijuana' in this sentence with 'alcohol', you'd have some truth. What we have in this sentence as it was written is impaired thinking, probably due to the writer having never tried marijuana.

When a federally-sponsored study by the Medical College of Virginia in 1974 accidentally discovered that *cannabis cures cancer* (def. "cure cancer": to actively kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells), the Drug Enforcement Administration immediately ordered a cease to all further study into the cancer-curing effects of cannabis. Millions of people have died of cancer since then - we could have already had a working cure by now! How many more sick people is our society willing to kill because of nothing more than stigma?

Canadian Rick Simpson cured his skin cancer with high-grade medicinal oil extracted from cannabis, and since then he's cured hundreds of cases of skin cancer with 100% effectiveness - every single person he has treated has been cured (except for the people who had poisoned their bodies with chemo and radiation and died anyway). There's even been a film made about Rick Simpson called "Run From the Cure" - google it and watch it free online.

If you're skeptical and don't believe that cannabis does in fact cure cancer (i.e. it kills cancer cells without harming healthy cells), google "Granny Storm Crow" and get her list. Inside Granny Storm Crow's list, among the 120 pages of URL links, you will find well over 50 URL links to objectively factual articles from credible medical entities that prove irrefutably that cannabis cures cancer.

I am confident that our government (or any other government for that matter) is incapable of withholding or concealing a cure for cancer from the world.

Kingprawn

Trogdor gave you the relevant facts and links to more information. This has been known in the marjiuana reform movement for a few years now. Why do you insist on holding onto your ignorance?

Here's a sample of the research mounting showing marijuana's anti-cancer properties:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7842

Naturally occurring compounds in cannabis possess anti-tumor properties and present a novel approach for cancer treatment, according to a scientific review published in the February issue of the journal Best Practice & Research: Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

Investigators at the University of Salerno in Italy report that cannabinoids limit cancer cell proliferation and induce tumor-selective cell death.

Cannabinoids inhibit "tumor growth and migration, angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels to cancerous tumors), [and] metastasis (the transfer of malignant cells from one site to another)," authors concluded. "Emerging evidence suggests that agonists of cannabinoid receptors ... may offer a novel strategy to treat cancer."

A 2008 review in the journal Cancer Research reported that the administration of cannabinoids halts the spread of a wide range of cancers, including brain cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lymphoma.

To date, only one clinical trial assessing the use of cannabinoids as anti-cancer agents has been conducted. That trial reported that THC administration decreases recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumor growth in patients afflicted with the disease.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "Use of cannabinoid receptor agonists in cancer therapy as palliative and curative agents," appears in the journal Best Practice & Research: Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. Additional information on the anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids appears online at: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group....

The words "treatment" and "cure" have different meanings.

JohnThomas,

I did not argue that marijuana isn't beneficial in the treatment of cancer. I did not intend to attack you or Trogdor or your beliefs. I simply stated my belief.

Kingprawn

It didn't seem so much like an attack as a denial of the evidence in front of your nose.

"Treatment" vs. "cure?" -- In the research I posted, it stated cannabis "halts the spread of a wide range of cancers, including brain cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lymphoma."

When you "halt the spread" of cancer, that's a cure.

Again, I'm not denying the existence of evidence that marijuana treats cancer. I share your enthusiasm and optimism regarding a cure for cancer but believe that you have overstated the current research findings. Many studies suggest that some chemicals in marijuana reduces tumor size and and inhibit growth or spread of new cancer cells but I have yet to find research that suggests that marijuana eliminates all cancer cells (which is my definition of "cure"). I was unable to find any studies on grannystormcrow claiming that marijuana "cures" cancer. The study that you linked doesn't claim "cure" either. If you know of a study that does, I'm open to reading it.

Kingprawn

You seem unaware of the nature of cancer. If you halt its spread, that's a cure. Also, cancer has been an elusive disease. Just because it does not cure all cancers, does not mean it is ineffective. There probably doesn't exist one single cure for cancer.

I recommend you watch Rick Simpson's "Run From the Cure" video cited by Trogdor. It's excellent.

We have differing interpretations of the current available data which probably won't be reconciled here.

If you find a study that includes some variation the statement, "our findings support the hypotheses that marijuana cures cancer in humans", please post it here.

The case of Bob Marley fuels my skepticism of the anecdotal evidence provided by Mr. Simpson. Marley, who died from cancer that reportedly began as a form or malignant melanoma on his toe, was reportedly a habitual cannabis user. Surgery may have saved his life, but conflicted with his religious beliefs. Unfortunately smoking marijuana did not stop the cancer from mestastasizing, but it probably did a good job of keeping him comfortable until his death.

"cure cancer": to actively kill cancer cells without being harmful to healthy cells

If you continue to apply a treatment to a tumor that reduces the size of the tumor, it stands to reason that the tumor will eventually be eradicated. If our society wasn't 30 years behind on cannabinoid anti-cancer research, this is exactly what cannabinoid treatments would do today. As it stands, Rick Simpson has "cured" hundreds of cases of skin cancer - hundreds of people who had skin cancer no longer have skin cancer because of Rick Simpson and his cannabis oil. These people weren't treated until their cancers went into remission, they were cured of cancer. Cancer: gone. That is a "cure" by your strict definition.

But hey, cannabis has been shown to do some pretty incredible things medicinally - for example shrinking tumors without the (de-facto-mandatory) help of POISONS like chemo and radiation - therefore it should be legal for use by the medical profession. If doctors can give dextro-amphetamines to children as young as 3 (and they do), if they can prescribe oxycontin which has almost the same effect as heroin, doctors should be allowed to prescribe nature's miracle drug - the most widely used drug in the United States before 1863 (number 2 until 1901).

Anyhow, you'll find some very interesting topics referenced in Granny Storm Crow's list. Here's a fun one:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20080904/ma...

Cannabis has been shown to kill MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus - the "flesh eating superbug"). This little bug is becomming a big problem in places like hospitals, where incidence rates and deaths continue to rise annually. And once it develops a resistance to every traditional antibiotic we throw at it that is currently effective, there will still be cannabis.

Here's another kicker (not on Granny's list):
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009...
"Brain manufactures proteins that act like marijuana"

That's right - you (yes you) are on marijuana right now. Your brain produces peptide proteins that both bind to and activate its cannabinoid receptors. Which is the exact same thing cannabinoids ingested from cannabis do. Whether it's a nonpolar compound from a plant or it's a protein produced by the brain itself, it's still a marijuana drug, and your brain can't tell the difference.

For the record, the only reason Bob Marley died is because he refused to have his toe amputated due to religious beliefs. Also please note that smoking cannabis is the *least* medicinal way to ingest it.

Had the Bob Marley been taking cannabis extract orally under a Rick Simpson-style high-dose regimen, the king of reggae might still be alive today.

MCC's,

Please, bear with me as I ask questions. My intention is to question the evidence presented, not you or your personal beliefs. Please don't be offended. I assure you that I am not ignorant because I don't share your beliefs (although that seems to be a common leap that people make). The argument that, "he must not understand what I understand, because if he did it would be impossible for him to disagree" is an fallacy wrapped in hubris. I've been reading the information provided at the end of the links. I even understand how you are interpreting the evidence provided in the links. I just haven't been able to reach the same conclusions that you have.

Again, I'm not saying that chemicals found in marijuana don't have medicinal purposes, I just haven't made the leap from "inhibits tumor growth" to "cures cancer". You appear to believe that the two statements are synonymous. I'm just not sure how many people with cancer would agree. Less cancer is still cancer. I'm sincerely curious, Trogdor, what is the reference for your definition of "cancer cure"?

I understand the desire to believe that there is a guy in the middle of nowhere "curing cancer". I want to share your optimism. I'm a little surprised that neither of you is skeptical of him. All he has provided is anecdotal evidence in the form of testimonials from satisfied customers. There are many possible explanations for their being "cured" since his work is not subjected to scrutiny, scientific or otherwise. I'm sure you both know that throughout history there have been many "cures" for cancer (many of them herbal) that have been proven ineffective and/or dangerous.

A reference to a study suggesting that marijuana (not a synthesized derivative as is used in many studies) cures cancer in humans still has not been provided. I'd like to see that statement in the results section of a peer reviewed study with a solid experimental design.

I would like to believe that there is a cure for cancer, I just haven't been convinced by what has been presented so far. I encourage you to continue to plead your case.

"Surgery may have saved his life, but conflicted with his religious beliefs."-Kingprawn

"For the record, the only reason Bob Marley died is because he refused to have his toe amputated due to religious beliefs."-Trogdor

Um...thanks for setting the record straight?

"Your brain produces peptide proteins that both bind to and activate its cannabinoid receptors." -Trogdor

Our brains also produce endogenous opioid polypeptide compounds that resemble opiates. Are you saying that narcotics cure cancer as well? How does this statement add to the argument that marijuana cures cancer?

"Had the (sic) Bob Marley been taking cannabis extract orally under a Rick Simpson-style high-dose regimen, the king of reggae might still be alive today."-Trogdor

So, are you saying that marijuana doesn't cure cancer but an extract of hemp does?

Trogdor

The cancer curing power of cannabis sure has got Kingprawn worked up. 8^)

Once this is general knowledge in the public, prohibition's goose is cooked.

Yep, I'm full of questions if that's what you mean by "worked up".

Much proof has been presented here. You are full of denial.

If you choose not to believe that a substance that causes cancer to shrink is also capable of eradicating cancer, then that's fine, it's not worth wasting my time to continue to argue my case. I have already provided ample evidence to support my claim.

Your Bob Marley comment had not been posted when I wrote the one above it. It's my fault I skimmed it too quickly before responding. You said surgery may have saved him; I'm saying he would still be alive. A conflict of syntax and nothing more.

The reference to endocannabinoid proteins was provided not as a reference to the ability of cannabis to cure cancer, but as an additional topic of note. The reference to cannabis killing MRSA has nothing to do with cancer either.

Hemp is the term commonly applied to the non-drug use of cannabis. The term 'cannabis' applies to all parts of all plants in the genus Cannabis of the family Cannabacaea, especially when referring to their psychoactive components. "Cannabis extract" is a term that is generally applied to medicinal extracts of cannabis flowers, whereas the use of the term "hemp seed oil" is self-explanatory.

Here's an additional fact of note:

delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, the principal active ingredient in marijuana) has been an FDA-approved drug, prescribable by any medical doctor in the United States, since May 31, 1985. In 1999, due to its safety record and relative lack of potential for abuse, "Dronabinol" (synthetic THC under the brand name "Marinol") was downgraded from Schedule II to Schedule III under federal law.

Q. What is the difference between the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol of federal Schedule I (which has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"), and the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol of federal Schedule III ("dronabinol", which "has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States")?

A. The pharmaceutical industry makes money off the synthetic THC, money that it uses to pay politicians to keep the natural THC (and cannabis's plethora of beneficial analogue compounds) illegal. The federal government must believe that medicinal cannabis users are incapable of titrating their doses themselves.

JohnThomas:

The Cannabis Re-Education Team is an upcoming viral activism campaign designed to influence public policy by educating the people of the nation about the various aspects of cannabis, as well as to encourage the use of Jury Nullification, an 800 year-old right of the people to nullify unjust laws by oppressive governments. Within a week or so our website will be functional, our mission stated, and our strategy outlined, after which we will begin an aggressive Craigslist campaign to recruit activists in every state.

Your help (as an informed citizen willing to set the record straight) would be beneficial to our cause, therefore we ask that you join us once the project is underway.

I'll agree that cannabis may be "capable" (your word) of shrinking a tumor until it disappears if given enough time (assuming the patient lives long enough). My argument is that this hasn't been documented yet.

"Much proof has been presented here. You are full of denial." JohnThomas

How does this comment contribute constructively to the discussion?

I'm the only one who took you guys seriously enough to even engage in a discussion. I've demonstrated respect for your views by reading the posts/viewing the videos you've presented and displayed interest in your beliefs by requesting further clarification. JohnThomas, you haven't been respectful from the beginning and have suggested that I'm "ignorant", "unaware", "worked up" and in "denial" simply because I don't share your views. Your responses suggest that you are threatened by anyone who may question or challenge your beliefs. I apologize for any questions I may have asked that resulted in your feeling threatened. I'm just interested in the topic.

Trogdor, I sincerely hope your intent was not to "convert" me as you alluded in the opening statement of your last post. I just thought we were having a discussion. I find it interesting that you consider a discussion a "waste of time" unless your discussion partner agrees with you.

KP

>>>""Much proof has been presented here. You are full of denial." JohnThomas

>>>"How does this comment contribute constructively to the discussion?"

It sums up what this dicussion has devolved to. Various posters provided links to the science that proves cannabis cures some cancers. Then you try to pass off the mountains of research as one "opinion" versus your opinion.

Denial.

JohnThomas,

By "various posters", you must mean yourself and Trogdor. Who else has posted "links to science" proving that cannabis cures some cancers?

>>>"Who else has posted links to science proving that cannabis cures some cancers?"

Thanks for admitting it. 8^)

Have you noticed that you frequently respond without actually answering my questions?

I'll ask again: besides yourself and Trogdor, who else has posted evidence here?

I wasn't keeping track actually. I suppose Trogdor's links were so numerous, it seemed like more people. I still think your admission is more interesting.

What admission? That I couldn't find invisible posts?

By the way, I support the legalization of marijuana and again, I'd love to be able to "suspend disbelief" long enough to agree with you regarding a cure. I'm sorry that you feel I'm ignoring the mountain of research. Quite the opposite. I spent the night reading it.

I wish you could disagree respectfully.

It doesn't appear you read the research. You have offered no concrete criticism of any of them. They stand tall in their signficance in light of your absence of refutation.

Kingprawn believes that because there was no cannabis anti-cancer research done between 1975-2003, that the lack of solid peer-reviewed study is an indication that cannabis does not actually cure cancer. You'll get your documentation, don't worry, it's only a matter of time. I have better things to do than continue to try to change the opinions of one individual. Exposure to objectively factual information is what counts, exposure received.

So what about the fact that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the principal active ingredient in marijuana) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in humans, prescribable by any medical doctor in the United States, since May 31, 1985? That our government says that marijuana is in fact a useful drug safe for humans, but only if created artificially in a pharmaceutical lab? Disprove that.

Mr. Kingprawn, I submitted a couple links to data, as did "seattle420lover." A number of other commenters submitted informed but un-referenced data to address the topics.

As I watched this debate unfold, much of my questions and arguments were ably defended by JohnThomas and later Trogdor, removing the necessity of further contributions on my part.

As you may infer by the comments and the poll herein, popular support for legalizing marijuana is overwhelming.

Binky,

As I posted earlier, I'm not against the legalization of marijuana. Did you click the link supplied by Seattle420? I couldn't find data at that link supporting the idea that cannabis cures cancer.

"You'll get your documentation, don't worry".-Trogdor

I'll be waiting. Again, I want you, John Thomas and Binky to be right about a cure for cancer. My fingers are crossed. I'm not an enemy of your beliefs just because I ask questions.

Still no refutation of the studies presented. Just "I don't believe them." Sorry, but that's as weak as it gets.

JohnThomas,

Why would I refute them? Your statement demonstrates that you really have no idea what I have been talking about. You appear to only be capable of comprehending your side of the issue.

The studies presented in the links above are preclinical (e.g., cells in petri dishes, animal subjects) and mostly utilize synthetic cannabinoids. They are not clinical human studies. My argument has been that there are no clinical human studies suggesting that cannabis cures cancer. Trogdor seems to understand where I'm coming from if you read his last post. Maybe he can explain it to you. I no longer have the patience.

"Kingprawn believes that because there was no cannabis anti-cancer research done between 1975-2003, that the lack of solid peer-reviewed study is an indication that cannabis does not actually cure cancer."-Trogdor

That's not what I said. I just said it hasn't been proven yet. I hope that it is someday for the sake of humanity.

"So what about the fact that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the principal active ingredient in marijuana) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in humans, prescribable by any medical doctor in the United States, since May 31, 1985? That our government says that marijuana is in fact a useful drug safe for humans, but only if created artificially in a pharmaceutical lab? Disprove that."-Trogdor

I don't want to. You disprove it. Maybe you should read my posts a little more carefully.

taxing cannabis clubs
tax revenue from cannabis
upcomeing election
who is for and who is against
also city council
who is for and who is against

Trogdor

Sorry, I just saw your post about the Cannabis Re-Education Team. Sounds good! I'd be interested in learning more.

KP

>>>"My argument has been that there are no clinical human studies suggesting that cannabis cures cancer. Trogdor seems to understand where I'm coming from"

He understands you are unwilling to consider the research.

>>>"The studies presented in the links above are preclinical (e.g., cells in petri dishes, animal subjects"

No. The NORML article I linked stated: "[One] trial reported that THC administration decreases recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumor growth in patients afflicted with the disease."

And in their page dedicated to the astoundingly underreported discovery ( http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group... ) various studies were conducted on human tissues. Also, scientists don't do drug testing on "animals" just to cure "animals" of disease. The shocking truth is people are animals, and scientists choose other animals to study that most closely react as the human animal does.

Further, despite the fact marijuana smoke contains most of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, there has been NO reported case of lung cancer among the many millions of exclusively cannabis consumers. It is because of the anti-tumoral properties of cannabis the growing body of studies has confirmed.

This is a preponderance of evidence. The only reason we don't have much more research is the prohibitionist controlled U.S. government has not authorized any studies of marijuana's benefits - only it's hoped for dangers.

At the very least, the fraudulent marijuana prohibition should end immediately for those who wish to conduct their own experiments, and a Manhattan project of medical investigation should be launched to ferret out what the Western world has been anticipating so long - a cure for cancer!

"In the first ever pilot clinical trial assessing the use of cannabinoids and GBM, investigators found that the intratumoral administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two of nine subjects."-The NORML article

My bad. It worked on two people out of nine. Are you good at math?

The authors of the NORML paper then went on to state, "[THC] with its POSSIBLE anti-proliferative action on tumor cells reported here and in other studies, MAY set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the POTENTIAL antitumoral activity of cannabinoids" (emphasis mine)-The NORML article

Again, I argue that you have overstated your case. Here's some research suggesting that cannabinoids accelerate cancer growth:

Here's a study out of Martinsried Germany that suggests cannabinoids accelerate the proliferation of cancer cells.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi...

These papers found that Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol reduces tumor immunogenicity (which is bad):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15...

This study states, ":THC seems to impair the immune response to cancer. As yet there is no evidence that THC or other cannabinoids have anticancer effects in humans.":

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrie...

In the conclusions section of a meta-analysis of the current available research conducted in Britain, the authors state, "The immunosuppressive properties of plant-derived cannabinoids could enhance tumour cell proliferation (Zhu et al., 2000; McKallip et al., 2005) and accelerate cancer progression in patients".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/arti...

If you argue, I'll just claim that you are ignoring the evidence.

Here's a link to the "Pilot" or "feasability" study by Guzman et al. The results are less than overwhelming due to the low n and sample population consisting only of patients for whom standard therapy had not been successful. There is no mention of a control group in the cohort to determine if cannabinoids are better, worse, or similar to conventional treatment. Of course, if you don't know much about research, identifying these confounding factors is meaningless. I guess I should have figured you latch on to the "two person" study and acknowledged it:

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95...

The "Pilot" study was written up in 2006. Guzman sites the "Pilot" in his most recent studies using animal models that have been published as recently as July 2009.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v...

Why has he returned to the animal model after three years instead of pressing forward with humans trials? Why has no one else pushed forward with clinical trials? It is the dearth of human studies not the preponderance that I find interesting.

Let me guess, big worldwide conspiracy right?

Now you're debating. About time.

2 out of 7 is 29 percent. Lots of cancer patients would take those odds. And that was just one phase of one study. As they learn how marijuana's anti-cancer properties work, they will logically be able to maximize that effect.

The Martinsreid study stated: "we show that Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major psychoactive component of marijuana, suppresses host immune reactivity against lung cancer."

Interesting. This shows that often too narrow a focus yields misleading results. As mentioned prior, we have had the greatest study on earth of marijuana and cancer. Many millions of people have been smoking pot for decades. There has not been even ONE reported case of cancer caused by all that smoking. Since smoked cannabis has most of the same carcinogens as smoked tobacco, there can be only one conclusion. The anti-tumoral properties of cannabis have been operating at 100 percent for the entire population of consumers.

Only by keeping the reality of the larger picture in mind can you judge which discoveries have relevance in real life. Clearly, whatever minute "cancer-causing" action some researchers (backed by who?) have dug up, is outweighed by the far more powerful anti-tumoral properties of marijuana.

>>>"It is the dearth of human studies not the preponderance that I find interesting. -- Let me guess, big worldwide conspiracy right?"

Right. A big worldwide conspiracy strong-armed by the U.S. onto the rest of the world. It is just part and parcel of the easily observable master worldwide conspiracy of marijuana prohibition in general. The U.S. perpetrated the great fraud in 1937 and a few decades later had disseminated it throughout the planet. As the ringleader of the American Inquisition, Harry Anslinger gloated after his crime of coercing other countries into world-wide marijuana prohibition: "Now they'll NEVER legalize it!"

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. government, manipulated by powerful interests that profited off of marijuana prohibition, has refused to authorize ANY study that would look at marijuana's benefits.

Sometimes a conspiracy really is a conspiracy.

JohnThomas,

You don't seem interested in acknowledging my interpretation of the data, but I thought you might be interested in the thoughts of Manuel Guzman, whose 2006 pilot study you cite as proof the cannabinoids cure cancer. He's an expert, right? I contacted Manuel Guzman this morning via email. My email and his response are posted below.

"Mr. Guzman,

I appreciate that you are a very busy man as evidenced by your contributions to the growing body of research suggesting that cannabinoids have a promising future in the treatment of cancer. I was wondering if you could take a moment to settle a dispute I am having with a friend. My friend has suggested that cannabinoids cure cancer in humans. He says that there is a preponderance of data to support his statement. He has cited your clinical pilot study on patients with glioblastoma multiforme from 2006. Do you agree with his assertion that cannabinoids cure cancer? Thank you in advance for your response. I greatly appreciate the work that you are doing to discover better treatments and possibly a cure for cancer."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hey Kevin, thanks for your note.
I cannot say that cannabinoids cure cancer. Not at all. First, cancer is in fact a copendium of about 150 different pathologies - cannabinoids may have an effect on some of them, but not on others. Second, there is evidence that cannabinoids can curb the growth of or sometimes erradicate cancer cells injected in rats and mice, but of course this does not necessarily mean that they will do so in cancer patients. We are trying to push cannabinoids into the clinic as cancer-attenuating drugs, but nowadays I would definitely not say that cannabinoids cure cancer.
Best,
Manuel"

Feel free to contact him. His email address can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/...

KP

Now you're really getting into the spirit of debate. Way to go. I've done that before myself.

Since scientists are so methodical and jealous about their discoveries, of course they hedge their bets with any proclamations like that. Guzman said: "nowadays I would definitely not say that cannabinoids cure cancer."

The key to that statement was the qualifier "nowadays." This is further hedging against what the future reveals as the research into marijuana's anti-tumoral properties gathers real steam. I'd bet a month's salary that in ten years his answer will be very different.

I may send him a note myself. Thanks.

Still the fact remains, millions of people have been bombarding their lungs with the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke for decades - but with NO cases of lung cancer ensuing.

Your gnarled tree seems to be blocking your view of the forest.

"...you will find well over 50 URL links to objectively factual articles from credible medical entities that prove irrefutably that cannabis cures cancer." -Trogdor

"You'll get your documentation, don't worry, it's only a matter of time." -Trogdor

"...but nowadays I would definitely not say that cannabinoids cure cancer."-Manuel Guzman

"The cancer curing power of cannabis sure has got Kingprawn worked up. 8^)"-JohnThomas

"I'd bet a month's salary that in ten years his answer will be very different." -JohnThomas

I thought we were talking about now. You and Trogdor initially argued that there is current evidence proving that cannabis cures cancer now. Now you're saying that it "will". OK, as I said before, I hope you're right.

It also appears you've altered your argument from "a preponderance of scientific literature proves that cannabis cures cancer" to "people smoke marijuana and don't seem to get cancer". OK fine, I agree with the idea that if one strategy doesn't work, change tactics. My argument has remained the same: there is no documented proof of marijuana curing cancer in humans.

Here is some research supporting the fact that you are now overstating your new argument by saying that there are "no" cases of cancer linked to smoking marijuana. "No" means "zero", right?

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/...

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/...

This review of the current body of research suggests that there are no, "definitive conclusions" regarding a relationship between smoking marijuana and cancer:

http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/cont...

Possible link between smoking marijuana and prostate and cervical cancer:

http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/cont...

A study in which marijuana smokers were described as "disproportionally overrepresented" among young individuals who developed upper/lower respiratory tract cancer:

http://jcp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/42...

Great wide and deep discussion. Several things I don't see- 1) Weed has been ubiquitous for decades- prohibition has failed to keep our youth 'safe'.
2) the above has meant criminalizing a lot of people who were recreational users. overcrowded failing prisons etc resulted
3) the compassionate use act passed and has become the legal basis for a significant quasi legal market that allows people, on the backs of those with legitimate medical needs and uses, to be recreational without the threat of criminalization.
4) as a society we already have models for legal dangerous chemicals- pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco. The pot culture wants a fourth that isn't corporate, allows you to grow your own, and is resistant to coming up with either a quantified 'dose' or controlled distribution like the other three.
5) what we have here is a true free (black)market becoming a legal regulated one. Much of the argument in this thread is noise and splitting hairs as people fight over their belief or self interest.
Let's start talking about what we think makes a society that works instead of this noise.

I also emailed Paul Armentano, the Deputy Director of NORML and the NORML Foundation, this morning. My correspondence with him can be found below:

"I appreciate that you are very busy as evidenced by your frequent articles in the Huffington Post and your advocacy for cannabinoid research. I greatly appreciate your role in providing education to the general population regarding growing body of research suggesting that cannabinoids have a promising future in the treatment of cancer. I was wondering if you could take a moment to settle a dispute I am having with a friend. My friend has suggested that cannabinoids cure cancer in humans. He says that there is a preponderance of data to support his statement. He has cited M. Guzman's clinical pilot study on patients with glioblastoma multiforme from 2006. Do you agree with his assertion that cannabinoids cure cancer? Thank you in advance for your response. I greatly appreciate the work that you are doing to educate the public regarding better treatments and the possibility of a cure for cancer."
___________________________________________

"Kevin,

There is ample preclinical evidence (in vitro and in vivo) that compounds in cannabis possess potent and anticancer properties - selectively targeting and killing cancer cells and tumors via apoptosis and by inhibiting angiogenesis. However, it is not accurate to extrapolate these preclinical findings and assert that "cannabinoids cure cancer in humans." There are to date no clinical studies demonstrating such a finding. Keep in mind, even in Guzman's pilot study, tumor reduction was only documented in two of 9 patients, and survival was only mildly increased in these patients. In short, all of the patients still died. Also, patients in the study were injected intracranially with cannabinoids, they were not ingesting or smoking cannabis.

In sum, the preclinical science is intriguing and positive, but it is a stretch to take this science and interpret it to imply that cannabis is a "cure" for cancer."

Mr. Armentano can be reached by contacting NORML at the link provided below:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3441

Of course Paul Armentano, representing NORML, is going to be another professional that errs on the side of caution in his proclamations. This is understandable. Since there are so many iron-clad arguments that support ending marijuana prohibition, there is no need for them to get bogged down in the cancer debate when the research has been stifled by the government.

There is one major research project that has cleared cannabis of causing cancer, though. UCLA pulmonary specialist, Dr. Donald Tashkin, was commissioned by the government to find marijuana's harms, but after 30 years of research, he has concluded there is no signficantly harmful effect of marijuana on the lungs, other than some bronchitis for heavy consumers. No cancer. No other researcher has reached the level of Tashkin's studies.

Here is a good interview with Donald Tashkin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pBw0...

All of the research on the possibility of marijuana-caused cancers are based on smoked marijuana. When it is consumed in other ways, eating, drinking or vaporization, there is, of course, no harm to the lungs at all.

The idea that marijuana is a causal factor of head and neck cancers, or any other serious health problem has been debunked by the body of the research. I could not see your last link as a subscription to that site is required.

The prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, states, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health."

JT,

So...now your argument is, "marijuana doesn't cure cancer, but it probably doesn't cause it either"?

I can live with that. That's more reasonable than "cannabis cures cancer" which is the statement that got me involved in this "debate" in the first place. Try to keep in mind that every time you overstate the medical properties of marijuana, you harm your own reform/re-education movement. Reasonable people have difficulty believing unreasonable claims.

I don't think Mr. Armentano knows the meaning of the word "hedge" (Have you seen the video with him and Dr. Bearman?). He's as honest and straight-shootin' as they come. He's also probably the best advocate for your movement right now. I never would have guessed you would be so dismissive of his thoughts on the matter.

I'm sure you read the unfortunate fact that all of the patients in the Guzman study died. What are your thoughts on that?

No. My position as a private citizen is different from people, like Paul Armentano, who lead the reform movement, and must err on the side of caution. I didn't dismiss his thoughts. I'd bet that off the record, he'd state beliefs similar to mine. It is like I said. The great body of research shows there are anti-tumoral properties to cannabis. Combined with the fact there have been no reported cases of lung cancer from the millions of consumers over the last several decades is a preponderance of the evidence for any reasonable person.

All patients die eventually. I'm more impressed with the the many millions who have inhaled much toxic smoke from marijuana with no reported cases of lung cancer.

JT,

You did it. You stated your views in a reasonable, respectful way.

You seem intelligent and can probably change many minds regarding the legalization of marijuana if you don't overstate your case, use dramatic language or tell people that they just don't get it.

Don't be afraid of people who ask questions. Be afraid of the people who don't ask questions.

KP

Questions are fine. When it comes to marijuana, I'm the answer man. 8^) - There is nothing wrong with dramatic language or emotional discourse. I'm actually suspect of those whose arguments are devoid of that expression. The incredible destruction wrought by the monstrous fraud of marijuana prohibition is far beyond what most people imagine. It easily qualifies as the American Inquisition. Without emotional expression of this dark side of the U.S., we can never fully heal.

I've been in the thick of the heaviest Internet marijuana reform debates since 1997 and haven't lost one yet. The Internet has been the driving force of marijuana reform since California's Prop 215 kicked it off in 1996. I'm proud to have been a key player in this revolution.

I'm sorry if I come off too combative, but there have been countless times when some present themselves as believing in reform, but actually have a mission of disruption to the movement. This is understandable, considering the vast, powerful interests who profit greatly from this persecution.

You do pretty well yourself, once you get warmed up. 8^)

Per the comment: "Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana."

Knowing how statistics can be taken out of context I posit that marijuana can be one of the drugs found used be someone in a traffic accident.

If the statistic specifically says that marijuana is the only intoxicating substance found, than this makes things different.

All of that having been said, one should not operate a motorized vehicle under the influence of *any* intoxicating drug.

I should have said "knowing how statistics can be taken or presented out of context" to clarify that my doubts were not with InTheKnow per se.

billclausen

>>>"If the statistic specifically says that marijuana is the only intoxicating substance found, than this makes things different."

The problem is the way they "find" marijuana does not indicate current intoxication or impairment. Until they start using drug tests that indicate that, then they are just using bogus traffic laws to persecute innocent Americans.

LOL!!!! "Imperial data"...still LOL!!! Cazador, we understand...its hard to see and speak clearly when you are so blinded by anger. Maybe if you lit up every now and again, you would understand how cannabis calms troubled souls.

As a three-time back surgery patient, I can very clearly state that cannabis helps.

For the fear mongers worrying that everyone will start smoking 'weed' if it becomes legal is ridiculous. They're creating images that simply don't exist. I've been to several of the cannabis 'clubs' in town. They are staffed by very friendly, professional people, with a reception area and security staff. Specifically, Hortipharm looks like a coffee shop inside. I've never seen anyone hanging around, getting high, or doing anything that they should only be doing in the comfort of their own home.

In contrast, drive by one of the many 'dive' bars in town and you will see a very different level of clientele. Take the Cliff Room. I've been in the parking lot that it shares with several other businesses and been subjected to loud, obnoxious, and offensive behavior from patrons on their back patio, all of whom were intoxicated before noon on a Wednesday!

When Amsterdam decriminalized cannabis, their citizens' drug use didn't spike. They made pot 'boring'. It's available if they want it, but no one is pushing it on them.

With all of that said, I would never vote for a candidate purely because of their stance on cannabis. It's push-button politics. I don't vote on issues like this. I'll let Liberals vote like that.

Obama = Worst President since Jimmy Carter. In fact, I'd almost rather have Carter back, but I'm only 39 and don't remember him too much.

No, I'm not a Conservative, I'm a Republican. No, I didn't vote for W either.

Keep government control out of our lives!! Embrace the liberty our founders fought for!

I'd rather have government in our lives than rich thugs (corporations) ruling it. They are the ones perpetuating the monstrous fraud of marijuana prohibition.