re: Is there proof of medicinal benefits of marijuana?

There was a great cover story in National Geoghrapic a few years ago that basically came to one conclusion:

Sugar is an absolute poison for the human body.

People use to eat like two apples a year and that was their yearly intake of sugar.

Now it's 50 tablespoons a day with sodas and canned and processed food pumped full of sugar.

They also spoke to medical experts who said sugar had the same effect on the brain as Cocaine.

Sugar used to be rarity until the 18th century...it was for Kings and Queens.

Yeah I have that issue and it scared the shite out of me when I read it. I always knew sugar wasn’t healthy but damn. I’ve consciously reduced my sugar intake ever since. Sugar is more toxic to the body than marijuana, but so are a lot of things.



You’re having some magnificent double posts tonight

It has proven benefits in cancer, glaucoma, seizures and chronic pain.

quote:

---

quote:
it cures cancer




It is not claimed as such that I know of. It helps tolerate the effects of therapy.

---

PubMed search for Dr. Manuel Guzman, Complutense University, Madrid. Spain.

THC causes apoptosis of abnormal cells, regulates the synthesis of vascularity causing tumors to be both starved for nutrition and poisoned by their own metabolic waste buildup.

Guzman specifically studied the same cancer killing McCain and that killed Teddy Kennedy. Other follow up studies to Guzman's (both plural and possessive as he has done much) have investigated other types of tumors/cancers.

Guzman started his research when he discovered a 1972 US Study that was buried and attempted to be destroyed by the Feds for showing med benefits against cancer.

NIDA (National Institute on Drug ABUSE) controls the research in the USA. By definition they cannot allow studies into benefits (the "Abuse" part of their name) so any USA studies have to be proposed in opposite of intent: "Study to prove harm" which fails by showing benefit. /snap

quote:

---

Sugar is more toxic to the body than marijuana,

---

That's not a true statement at all. Sugar in excess for a prolonged period of time causes bad stuff, but there is nothing inherently dangerous about the sugar molecule itself.

I'm usually on board with your posts. That one goes a bit too far to agree with.

quote:

---

It has proven benefits in cancer, glaucoma, seizures and chronic pain.

---

Care to elaborate?

I will try to expand on where I think you're going, but please don't let me overstate/understate your position...

quote:

---

cancer

---

Broad generalization. At present, the only real indication for cannabis in cancer is as an appetite stimulant in advanced disease.

Now, non-human models do indicate that it could have some potential as an actual treatment itself if distilled down to a single cannabinoid agent rather than "crude plant extract." This article that is pumping its promise does not really give any great data as to how its use in humans could change the course of the disease or life on any scale worth using, but it does mention potential. To call this a "proven benefit in cancer" would be premature.

quote:

---

glaucoma

---

This one always irks me a little bit. Marijuana is not a good treatment for glaucoma. Long version with good data.

It lowers the pressure in the eyes for a short time - specifically shorter than current eyedrops readily available and relatively inexpensive (Latanoprost is once daily and ~$12/month. Timolol a little less effective by itself but can be had at $4/month and used in combination for better results and is also once daily) and with more adverse effects and would require day-round use of the drug.

quote:

---

seizures

---

See my previous post, but this is probably also over-hyped, but more research here would be a good thing.

Basically

quote:

---

Although it is plausible that THC may contribute to the anti-seizure activity reported for medical marijuana and other cannabis preparations, its adverse psychotropic properties37 and inconsistent activity in seizure models render it undesirable for development for the treatment of epilepsy.38

---

So they really only look at CBD and CBDV for anti-seizure properties. The best they have found re-link to article from previous post) is that there is some reduction in seizures in patients with Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes. These are two syndromes characterized by neurodevelopmental delay/deficits - severe forms of epilepsy that rob children of what most would call "normal" life.

Here's what did not happen:
They took these children, stopped all the medication, and they became "normal," happy, smiling children with no seizures and no developmental delays with no side effects.


Here's what happened:
They left these children on all their other medications. They added a specific dose of CBD or placebo. The kids from the trial with Dravet syndrome who had CBD added went from an average of 12.4 seizure/month to 5.9 seizures per month, and 3 (5%...small study size) became seizure free. The placebo group, as you can imagine, had about the same amount of seizures as before.
The LG trials also show that a lot of them reduce the number of seizures by a significant amount- roughly half in a lot of cases.


What's important here: This is all IN ADDITION to (at least in the LG arm) 3 current drugs for stopping seizures. One thing they specifically note is that CBD does increase the amount of those drugs in the child's system, so whether it actually stops seizures or the increase in the other drugs does is still in question and to be left to future studies.

This is another one where there is a ton of misinformation. Anyone advocating for a child that had two seizures to get medical marijuana is a fool- and any of those children who grow up to be 20 year olds on a college campus who want to stop their Keppra (or other) drugs to smoke marijuana under this guise are as well.

Anyone who has a child with one of the refractory forms of epilepsy and the child is at high risk (or already) suffering from neurodevelopmental delay, the benefits probably outweigh the risk, but we aren't talking about a magical cure that stops the need for all other drugs here. It still should probably be more available to them so long as they understand most of what the above means.

quote:

---

chronic pain

---

The data sucks, but we at this point probably have sufficient evidence (though the quality is not phenomenal) to suggest that it's a decent alternative as a second or third-line therapy.


Heaven knows we need something better for chronic pain...

quote:

---

So rape, torture, arson, and the lack of liability for driving 120mph, losing control, crossing the median, and killing a family of 5 should be absent from legislation? Seems like you're missing a few things from your list

---

No if 2 adults agree that one of them wants to sale being raped or tortured ( or both simultaneously) and the other wants to but it they should be totally allowed. I will agree that if by arson you mean ap my paying someone to destroy a third parties property I agree....so instead of child porn and murder for hire anything that involves damage to an unwitting third party. If, onthe hand my insurance company and I decide to burn down MY property for some reason who cares?

I don’t get the whole speeding thing. I don’t know how you buy no liability or how one would sale it.....but if it can be done without damaging an unwitting 3rd Party then my default answer is yes by all means. There’d be at least 4 unwiltting thirds parties in you scenario UNLESS they had signed some sort of release and knew they were going to die as a result of the transaction.....then I’m OK with that. I absolutely think individuals should be free to pay a doctor to end their life. If the individual wants to die by auto accident and can find someone they can pay to facilitate that and it does no damage to any third party by all means.


The word freedom should mean something......