In 1974, University of Virginia researchers discovered something very unlikely. Cannabis, banned in the United States in 1937, and further demonized by the Nixon administration in 1968, had an unexpected property: it inhibited the growth of lung cancer cells. But, even more surprising was the response from the government: an apparent complete absence, even discouragement of any follow-up studies. The results were briefly mentioned in news reports at the time, but with the end of the Carter administration, cannabis became a step-child as far as scientific research was concerned.
Like any unloved step-child cannabis was treated with different rules, and made a scape-goat for social ills.
There was still research being done on cannabis, but funding was only available if the intent was to prove harm. In fact, it wasn't until the pioneering work done by Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, in Israel, and Dr. Manuel Guzman in Spain, that this startling anti-cancer property of cannabis sativa became public again.
What is even more troubling is that the United States Government actually did a secret follow up-study on the Virginia findings, in the mid '90's. When it only served to confirm the results of the 1974 research, and showed that THC (one of the main active ingredient in cannabis – and the one the government loves to hate), when administered to mice, protected them against malignancy, true to form, our government attempted to bury the results. Fortunately, a draft copy of the study was leaked to the journal, AIDS Treatment News, and the media covered the story. An excellent article by Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, covers this part of our shameful history.
By 2003, the cat was pretty much out of the bag, and a quick search on PubMed brings up at least 262 results when you put in "cannabis and cancer" in the search string. But, as late as this year, the US Government was still funding research meant to prove that cannabis causes cancer. The extremely flawed survey which attempted to link cannabis smoking with testicular cancer falls into this category. In fact, in 2008, two years after Dr. Donald Tashkin research which showed that not only does cannabis not cause lung cancer, but appears to protect against it, three respected doctors from the cannabis research group felt compelled to write a letter to the European Respiratory Journal debunking a New Zealand study which claimed that smoking cannabis led to an increased risk of lung cancer.
Now, this month in Cancer Prevention Research Journal one can find a study demonstrating that chronic, long term of cannabis actually reduces the incidence of head and neck cancer. Specifically:
"10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC" [head and neck squamous cell carcinoma].
Knowing this, are you angry? You should be. It's a safe bet to say you know someone who has cancer. Or died of it.
It's also a safe bet that you didn't hear any coverage of this story in the mainstream media.
For my money, it's way past time for the politics of prohibtion to be thrown aside, and hard science applied to what promises to be an extraordinary new era in the treatment and cure of cancer.
And... we need all the voices we can get saying: That time is now!
_________________________________
Requests for reprints of the study cited above can be made here: Karl T. Kelsey, Department of Community Health, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Division of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI. Phone: 401-863-6420; Fax: 401-863-9008; E-mail: Karl_Kelsey@brown.edu.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
fernsy
Steve Elliott
Gwool
Sunil Aggarwal
Anne Cameron Cutri
Dr. Susanne Freeborn
Salon.com
Comments
Very interesting though. Rated, Redd, and Dugg.
The irony here is that the Nixon administration also declared a "War On Cancer"
The prohibition against marijuana was never based on anything other than ignorance and hysteria.
Thanks for posting this.
I dunno - just throwing this out as devil's advocado.
Ah shaggylocks, paranoia, yes. Well, I will refer you to an interesting article here (be sure to view the video clip too).
And thanks for the rating, redd and digg.
You are quite right to point out the smoke, in general, or any particulate matter is not a good thing to inhale; luckily, not only can you eat it safely (and you are right – try eating a cigarette – if you are a small child or animal the tobacco can kill you), you can also use a vaporizer which simply heats the cannabis, releasing the cannabinoids, without burning and creating smoke. Very easy on the lungs.
As to opiates vs. cannabis as an analgesic, this is another area where the government has purposefully stacked the cards against its own citizens. One if forced to take addictive dangerous drugs, instead of mild, effective cannabis, under penalty of law. How utterly insane.
2006 NIDA (National Inst. of Drug Abuse) Study
2007 Harvard Study
British Medical Journal article"
And finally, another excellent essay on the subject, by Paul Armentano.
As an illegal substance it pumps billions into the police, prison, rehab, and political economies. Those billions would disappear within a less than a year because legal cannabis would have little or no commercial value. No one is going to pay even 20 dollars an ounce much less hundreds of dollars for something they can grow in the back yard or basement. I have heard the argument that people do not grow their own vegetables, but if tomatoes were 50 dollars a pound or lettuce cost 25 dollars a head, there would be a lot more gardens in the back yard.
If those who want to see cannabis legal have to do the following. You have to kill the market and remove the financial incentive to keep it illegal. This can be done simply by growing for self use (not for sale) and stop paying billions of dollars for illegal cannabis. If there is no money there are no drug cartels. No drug cartels means no violence over money. No money changing hands takes all the power out of the industry.
Those who use cannabis would have a better idea of how much would be required to grow for sell use, but I would venture to say it would not take much. It would be impossible to police since there would be no pushers, no large growing areas, and no transporting points or drug deals. No cash means no criminal element and no reason for police investigating.
Something to consider.
What I believe, is that if we want it to be legal we ALL have to speak out, loudly and repeatedly.
I am thinking more in the lines of several plants per person and no selling or distribution to others which would put it under the radar of most efforts. The objective is small amounts spread out over larger areas which makes it less likely any one person would be above the radar. Eliminating the exchange of money removes the exposure associated with the selling.
Granted this is just a theory, but from what I have read most who are arrested even for medical marijuana there is money or distribution to others involved. If there are no clinics or large operations there is nothing to raid.
Mtodd, I will refer you to freedomisgreen's blog about Ray Wilson, the New Jersey MS patient who is now facing twenty years behind bars for growing cannabis for his own personal medicinal use because he had no health insurance, and could not afford the MS drugs the government wants him to use. By the way, the judge in the trial has stated that Wilson cannot mention that he has MS, nor that he used the cannabis as medicine because the jury "might feel sympathetic."
Hyblaean, until we all start loudly protesting this total overthrow of our civil rights (of which the War on Drugs is the central strategy), we are doomed.
You are such a blessing to this community and to the many suffering individuals who have so much to gain from your good cause.
—Melissa
I agree the final solution to this problem is when people say enough of the waste in lives and dollars for an idea that never had any basis in science.
When you consider the total drug use in this country and subtract marijuana from the mix you are left with around 2 million people who are hard core users of all other drugs including prescription pain killers. Since marijuana is the most used and most wide spread recreational drug it represents the lion share of illegal drug trade at least in volume of those involved. If the criminal element of sales was removed it would greatly reduce the negative public perception.
Of course I am speaking from a pure speculative point of view. The last time I purchased any marijuana Nixon was president. The drug trade was pretty much mom and pop selling grass on the side. There was little or no violence. There were no drug cartels or gangs fighting over millions. Shoot an ounce of pot cost 15-20 dollars then so to make really big money someone would have to move a lot of marijuana. It just did not draw the criminal element it does today.
As boomers grow older the idea of medical marijuana has become valid and in the next couple of years a federal law protecting state laws could be passed. But, to do this medical marijuana and recreational marijuana issue needs to be separated. Where a baby boomer such as myself does not see medical marijuana as a problem I am leery of non regulated recreational use. No one wants to see an increase in substance abuse.
Each substance has it set of problems. A person who abuses alcohol may do so only at night and be functional during the day. My father was a highly functional alcoholic. The reason is alcohol leaves the system quickly. That is not the case with cannabis. If someone smokes everyday their is an accumulative effect that results in burnout and unmotivated behavior in many that smoke all the time. Those are real problems that must be addressed.
We need more doctors on the east Coast who are courageous enough to study this. I bet you have ideas of how to promote this study. Please share them with us.
They must stop lying to us. Shame on them.
Adelaide, getting information out there takes persistence. It's hard to know when something will get picked up, and there is a lag time between what goes on in the blogosphere vs. Mainstream Media. My own strategy is to link to or reference research which backs-up what I say. I also point out obvious lies, or hypocrisy when I come across it in published or online material. I do this over and over again, and in different venues: in my own blog(s), in comments I make to editors or other writers, in letters to my representatives, in conversations with friends. I've even written a song. :-)
In this respect, everyone can (and must) nudge the shared reality toward clarity . . . it just takes speaking truth. Persistently.
Merry Jane, shame on them, indeed!