NationStates Jolt Archive

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread.

Another medical use surfaces.
So what do you think about the decriminalization of THC for medicinal purposes?

In an effort to possibly stir up some debate:
What if crack was found to cure AIDS?
Should anything proven to have a legitimate medicinal purpose be available for medicinal use?

Source (http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/04/17/hscout603764.html)

Trippy ...

It'd be better for me if it impeded throat cancer since I'm at a higher risk for that because of my dumb ass habits. But it's good to see some vindication.

In the crack example, if the drug is as debilitating as the disease, then you have to question how effective it really is. In the marijuana example all that happens is Pop Tarts taste better than they are and the Muppets get even funnier.

Great article. The sensational "Cannabis helps cure lung cancer" is the main bit, then tucked away at the bottom we have:

A second set of findings presented at AACR suggested that a viral-based gene therapy could target both primary and distant tumors, while ignoring healthy cells.

When injected into 15 mice with prostate cancer, this "smart bomb" therapy eliminated all signs of cancer -- effectively curing the rodents.

Erm...I think something that could totally cure cancer is slightly more important than THC having a possible positive effect on lung cancers. But clearly journalists know better than I do.

Presumably it's not so useful at beating lung cancer when taken by smoking, but if ingested in some other form, why not?

In the crack example, if the drug is as debilitating as the disease, then you have to question how effective it really is.
But who should it be up to to decide? The government, a doctor, or the individual?

Welli f it leads to a better tratemtent of cancer and could lead to a cure for cancer then I'm all for it. However it should be prescribed by doctors.

But who should it be up to to decide? The government, a doctor, or the individual?

It doesn't matter if a hyper-intelligent beaver and his council of matchsticks lays it out. Debilitation, disease, and death are measurable side effects and if something that causes debilitation, disease, and death cures something that causes debilitation, disease, and death...well...it doesn't take the hyper-intelligence of Mr. Beaver and his boardroom of matchsticks...

It doesn't matter if a hyper-intelligent beaver and his council of matchsticks lays it out. Debilitation, disease, and death are measurable side effects and if something that causes debilitation, disease, and death cures something that causes debilitation, disease, and death...well...it doesn't take the hyper-intelligence of Mr. Beaver and his boardroom of matchsticks...

Should radiation treatment be banned?

Woohoo!

Should radiation treatment be banned?

Honestly I was more into Mr. Beaver and his council of matchsticks than I was the argument itself, but I'll play along for the moment.

You're making a point about dosage here, and you could have at least respected my intellegence enough to be up front about that. Because it is possible to kill someone more horribly than cancer will with radiation, or in fact cause more cancer with too much exposure. But simply because a limited and controlled level of radiation can be effective it's not a free liscence for everyone to have their own plutonium lick in their house. Why? For the very reason that I stated, the cure is worse than the disease.

There is not a relatable debate, there is no one out there saying, "Hey, controlled and limited radiation can be part of a complex process to help reduce cancer, I should have all the uranium I want."

If something like crack, which side effects and debilitation on the body isn't in dispute, cured AIDS in some sort of limited application that didn't carry with it the very AIDS like side effects, then it would be an argument for that application and not for crack itself.

The difference is that with weed the negative side effects in no way relate to the disease it is helping cure, the trade off gap is much much wider.

Erm...I think something that could totally cure cancer is slightly more important than THC having a possible positive effect on lung cancers. But clearly journalists know better than I do.

No. That will happen anyway.

The journalists were right to focus on this aspect.

In an effort to possibly stir up some debate:
What if crack was found to cure AIDS?

using a lot of crack a long time is probably worse for your body (and mind) than having AIDS (with the best treatment of course) .

that being said i think that almost everything should be available when prescribed by a doctor and cannabis should be available over the counter.

Honestly I was more into Mr. Beaver and his council of matchsticks than I was the argument itself, but I'll play along for the moment.

You're making a point about dosage here, and you could have at least respected my intellegence enough to be up front about that. Because it is possible to kill someone more horribly than cancer will with radiation, or in fact cause more cancer with too much exposure. But simply because a limited and controlled level of radiation can be effective it's not a free liscence for everyone to have their own plutonium lick in their house. Why? For the very reason that I stated, the cure is worse than the disease.

There is not a relatable debate, there is no one out there saying, "Hey, controlled and limited radiation can be part of a complex process to help reduce cancer, I should have all the uranium I want."

If something like crack, which side effects and debilitation on the body isn't in dispute, cured AIDS in some sort of limited application that didn't carry with it the very AIDS like side effects, then it would be an argument for that application and not for crack itself.

The difference is that with weed the negative side effects in no way relate to the disease it is helping cure, the trade off gap is much much wider.

I'm saying that every method of treatment has some risk of complication.
If the side effects are worse than the disease for most people, I don't think it be banned so that nobody can benefit.
I don't like the idea of the government determining what is good for me, and outlawing everything that they decide isn't.
I think it should be up to the doctor to offer a recommendation, and ultimately up to the individual to decide when a patient is placed between a rock and a hard place.
If they choose the option which ultimately causes more harm, when fully informed of the possible consequences, then so be it.

No. That will happen anyway.

The journalists were right to focus on this aspect.
I was thinking more that they could have had a separate article for the virus-therapy thing, rather than just tagging it on the end of this one. It seems pretty major.

I believe this classifies as "irony."

I'm saying that every method of treatment has some risk of complication.
There is a world of difference between 'some risk' and 'virtual guarantee.'
If the side effects are worse than the disease for most people, I don't think it be banned so that nobody can benefit.
That's an odd use of the word 'benefit.' If it's a crap shoot, it's hardly a crap shoot worth risking anyone over. "This will more than likely make things worse, but there is an outside chance it might make it better so lets go for it. At least it's not me." If there is a way to determine when it will be effective and when it won't, like your poor radiation example, then it would be employed. Otherwise, it's not advisable.
I don't like the idea of the government determining what is good for me, and outlawing everything that they decide isn't.
Than make that argument, this one is different.
I think it should be up to the doctor to offer a recommendation, and ultimately up to the individual to decide when a patient is placed between a rock and a hard place.
Then it is moot, since no doctor is going to recommend a procedure that more than likely will make things worse.
If they choose the option which ultimately causes more harm, when fully informed of the possible consequences, then so be it.
There is nothing that says we have to hold that hand while they make a bad decision. The social cost, what I have to pay for your bad decision should be weighed as well. With weed, with its zero instance of violence and increasing evidence that it can actually be good for you, that cost is more in the prohibition than in the plant itself. The same cannot be said for crack.

There is an argument to be made for universal drug availability, but approach that argument honestly if you want to make it. It deserves that much. This roundabout of yours, not so much.

I love pot. I wish I didn't have to hide mine.

That's an odd use of the word 'benefit.' If it's a crap shoot, it's hardly a crap shoot worth risking anyone over.
"This will more than likely make things worse, but there is an outside chance it might make it better so lets go for it.
At least it's not me." If there is a way to determine when it will be effective and when it won't,
like your poor radiation example, then it would be employed. Otherwise, it's not advisable.

I am certainly not disputing the harmfulness of crack, but use does not guarantee addiction, just as smoking a cigarette does not.

To someone dying a slow and painful death, even an outside chance at recovery should be on the table.
There are plenty of dying patients who agree to participate in experimental procedures.
This crap shoot should be an available option as well.

No treatment is guaranteed, but I don't think we should impose a cutoff when the risk reaches a certain percent.
Again, the doctor should make the most informed recommendation possible, and the patient should make the most informed decision possible.
We should not, however, legislate to force them to make what appears to be the best decision.

There is nothing that says we have to hold that hand while they make a bad decision.
The social cost, what I have to pay for your bad decision should be weighed as well.
With weed, with its zero instance of violence and increasing evidence that it can actually be good for you,
that cost is more in the prohibition than in the plant itself. The same cannot be said for crack.

If social cost is an issue, a dying AIDS patient is already a drain.
High risk treatment could potentially cure them, more or less even out, or make things worse, accelerating death (which may even be desirable for the patient).
None of these outcomes increases the burden on society.

Than make that argument, this one is different.
There is an argument to be made for universal drug availability, but approach that argument honestly if you want to make it.
It deserves that much. This roundabout of yours, not so much.

I'm trying not to go down the road of recreational use, if that's what you mean.

I love pot. I wish I didn't have to hide mine.

It is like a small Jew child, hiding behind a bookcase from the Nazi bastards that wish to take it from you.

I am certainly not disputing the harmfulness of crack, but use does not guarantee addiction, just as smoking a cigarette does not.

To someone dying a slow and painful death, even an outside chance at recovery should be on the table.
There are plenty of dying patients who agree to participate in experimental procedures.
This crap shoot should be an available option as well.

No treatment is guaranteed, but I don't think we should impose a cutoff when the risk reaches a certain percent.
Again, the doctor should make the most informed recommendation possible, and the patient should make the most informed decision possible.
We should not, however, legislate to force them to make what appears to be the best decision.
Your terms are too ill-defined to make this at all fruitful.



If social cost is an issue, a dying AIDS patient is already a drain.
Then there is a reason not to add "crack addicted" to already "dying of AIDS."

High risk treatment could potentially cure them, more or less even out, or make things worse, accelerating death (which may even be desirable for the patient).
None of these outcomes increases the burden on society.

If it shifts the burden then it is not a viable route.

And again, terms are far too undefined for this to be worth it anymore.



I'm trying not to go down the road of recreational use, if that's what you mean.
I mean be honest with your debate. This fantasy world where crack has some undefined effect on AIDS is a disengenious round about to a libertarian argument. Just make the libertarian argument and get on with it.

Otherwise I'm left feeling like I'm arguing, "If unicorns could grant wishes would you eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?" and I don't want to do it anymore.

I think the crack example is a red herring...crack has zero positive effects, I don't think there's much of a chance it will ever yield any medical benefit. If it is ever shown to be good medicine for something (like if it cured AIDS, somehow), however, I think I'd support its use by prescription only under medical supervision. This is because even if it has positive effects, it's a dangerous drug and should be controlled like other dangerous prescription meds. Marijuana has a lot of well-documented medical benefits, a very mild side-effect profile...it's good medicine, and good, clean, safe fun (certainly when compared to booze or tobacco). I'd say it's probably no more dangerous than tylenol or sudafed or caffeine pills (included here because, like weed, they're primarily used for enhancement and not medicine), and should be sold similarly.

I'd love to be able to walk into Rite Aid and buy a joint. That'd be awesome.

As to the poll, and not reading article.. Are they making THC pills or something?

Your terms are too ill-defined to make this at all fruitful.
Such as?
If it shifts the burden then it is not a viable route.
:confused:
I mean be honest with your debate. This fantasy world where crack has some undefined effect on AIDS is a disengenious round about to a libertarian argument. Just make the libertarian argument and get on with it.
There is no devious intent here. I'm just offering that as an example to solidify this:
Should anything proven to have a legitimate medicinal purpose be available for medicinal use?

Dude....


dudedudedude...


I'm NEVER getting lung cancer.

I'd love to be able to walk into Rite Aid and buy a joint. That'd be awesome.

As to the poll, and not reading article.. Are they making THC pills or something?

In the study, they injected mice with THC, but THC pills already exist (and would presumably be the method used for humans).

I'd love to be able to walk into Rite Aid and buy a joint. That'd be awesome.

As to the poll, and not reading article.. Are they making THC pills or something?

No, that would be bad. Pre-rolled joints for sale are genrally no good-full of shake, sometimes stems and even seeds. And/or the bud is really shitty.

To the OP: I think that marijuana should be available OTC and for recreational use, and I believe that anything that is proven to have medical value should be made available by perscription. At least one should have the option of trying anything that could help treat whatever disease one happens to have, even if that treatment has negative side-effects.

I think Nationstates ought to make this an issue for the game. Be interesting to see which has the best political outcome.

Could have privatised use, making it illegal, legalising cannabis altogether and only available by the government.

In response to the question anyway, if THC were filtered, i.e. no Stoney-Side Effects, then I think it would be fantastic. Some people disagree with cannabis use, and some people would hate being stoned.

I mean more research should be done, because the Army used to think LSD heighted awareness in battlefields. If it were filtered, and administered the same way chemotherapy is, then it would be great. If it were smoked, it is putting foreign substances into your lungs.

My idea anyway

The question is, if I'm burning doobies all day, is the smoke causing or curing cancer?

But I smoke cigarettes anyway. AND use Sweet&Low in my coffee.

I'm doomed. :(