Reasons marijuana should be legal #158: it may fight cancer

Marijuana Compound May Fight Lung Cancer

For other important and utterly ignored info by some very prominent intellectuals on the topic of marijuana prohibition in the US (not tree-hugging commune members), see [url= Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in America[/url]

Couple of related articles:

Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol

[quote]The Beckley Foundation’s Global Cannabis Commission document said the cannabis ban had backfired and called for a “serious rethink” of drugs policy.

The ban has had little or no impact on supply and has turned users into criminals, it said.

“Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms, it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco,” the report claimed.

Historically there have only been two deaths worldwide attributed to cannabis, whereas alcohol and tobacco together are responsible for an estimated 150,000 deaths per annum in the UK alone.


Marijuana — Safer Than Aspirin and Other Legal Drugs

[quote]Cannabis is a safer drug than aspirin and can be used long-term without serious side effects, says a book by a leading Oxford scientist.

The Science of Marijuana, by Dr Leslie Iversen of Oxford University’s department of pharmacology, found many “myths” surrounding marijuana use, such as extreme addictiveness, or links with mental illness or infertility are not supported by science.

He also found cannabis is an inherently “safe drug” which does not lead to cancer, infertility, brain damage or mental illness. Legalisation of the drug for medical conditions should be considered, he says.

Dr Iversen’s findings will increase pressure on the Government to reopen the debate about the decriminalisation of marijuana.[/quote]

Now if only Sanjay Gupta would read these reports! You can read the new surgeon general’s utterly FRAIL reasoning behind his support for the continued criminalization of marijuana - even for medical purposes - at the link attached to his name.

Tell that to Bob Marley.

Why? he died of a melanoma on his foot that metastasized, as melanomas are wont to do, to his lungs, brain and liver. How does that relate to any of the above, specifically the part that a “compound in marijuana may help to protect against Lung cancer”?

Is that not cancer?

I should say that I don’t have a vested interest, either personal or financial, in legalizing marijuana.

That said, for me, this fight is important as it relates to law, the “war on drugs”, hypocrisy and money and people’s lives.

  1. If marijuana is just a dangerous drug, they should outlaw alcohol first.

  2. marijuana is dangerous because it funds criminal cartels. Especially the Mexican drug cartels which are ruthless. which brings us to… Pro-weed people need to recognize that, as long as it’s illegal, buying drugs means financing criminals. On the other hand, one wonders if it were decriminalized (and thus not monopolised or largely controlled by the black market ie largely criminals), would we see collapse of those cartels e.g. if everyone is just homegrowing.

  3. War on Drugs is a hypocrisy;

  4. Using hemp for products could help alleviate natural resources, reduce pollution. how?

investing in hemp paper means less deforestation (even tree farms and secondstand growth cannot compare to the economy and speed (maturation) that comes with hemp farms). Pulp and paper mills from tree->paper process requires lots of chemicals and result in river pollution. Hemp paper results in less pollution i understand.

investing in hemp clothing means less cotton farming. Cotton farming is highly intensive in labour and water costs.

ok, this is just stream of consciousness, no time to edit, back to work…

Yeah, it’s a cancer, but cancer is not just one type of disease, it’s a myriad of them. The link talks about primary lung cancer, ie cancer thats starts in the lung. melanoma that starts on your skin and then migrates as it matures is a totally different beast.
and as we all know, Bob Marley was well protected against primary lung cancer, on religious grounds too!

Leaving everything else aside, “It may fight cancer” is not a convincing reason to legalize marijuana.


the fact that it’s less harmful, and certainly far less addictive, than much of the world’s favourite recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol, should be useful factors, though.


the fact that it’s less harmful, and certainly far less addictive, than much of the world’s favourite recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol, should be useful factors, though.[/quote]

Legalising it has the dual benefit of saving money which was previously spent enforcing prohibition, and also provides the potential for the government to rehabilitate it as tobacco and alcohol were, making vast sums of money in the process. I approve of the idea of the government legalising drugs and then exploiting the users for cash.

Right now the government pays vast amounts of money for drugs, and gets nothing back. I would suggest:

  • People who want to take these drugs register themselves as legal drug users (for whatever reason, but of course everyone is going to say ‘recreational use, no I’m not an addict, not me, never!’)

  • The government licenses the production and distribution of these drugs to private companies (and charges them appropriately)

  • People registering as drug users sign a waiver which:

    o Absolves the government from responsibilty when/if they overdose or are harmed (they can sue the manufacturer)
    o Waives their right to government free or subsidised health care and medical services (they can go private)
    o Agrees that if found with these drugs in their system when driving, operating machinery, or in other situations where the impairment of their judgment may cause harm to others, they forfeit legal defense (eliminates costly legal battles)

  • The government taxes the sale of these drugs heavily, and makes money, a whole lot of money

Yes, and the government can from a positive relationship with drug users rather than driving everything underground.

I’d love to know how much money is spent fighting heroin: quite a few people have argued that NATO should buy opium directly from Afghan farmers and bankrupt the Taliban in the process. This would probably be much cheaper than a war on drugs.

Exactly. Above ground, it can be regulated and then no one gets hurt. It worked for cigarettes and alcohol. Remember, drugs don’t kill people, governments kill people who use drugs.

Sweet Jane should be legalized, highly taxed, and quality controlled. If only for it’s pervasive multi-tiered influence on vast segments of modern Western societies.
The trickle down effects would be enormous. Convenience stores and pizza joints would rake it in, to mention one example.

As for fighting cancer, that’s another of those medical conundrums whose pendulum swings back and forth every 10 years or so. Smoking mary jane will affect your lungs, perhaps even more so than smoking cigs, as any true hot-knifer or chronic inhaler will surely attest.

Luxury tax! On a captive market!

Hmm, stop drinking wine and start smoking? I mean, I’d love to and all, I just have this violent antipathy to looking like my dad …

the truth about marijuana

[quote=“bigcola”]the truth about marijuana[/quote]

Is that an amusing snippet that I shouldn’t click on at work?

C’mon. Cannabis is a crap drug for smelly hippies. Why the constant furore over it’s legalization? I’ve seen it do a lot of damage to the psychosis of certain individuals and I personally know of a few people who have had car smashes and marital break-ups while under the influence. I never see anyone screeching with equal vehemence about legalizing heroin. The reason why heroin is banned is because junkies need to have it and will stoop to any level to get it. If it was free, you would just have a bunch of constipated users with erectile dysfunction lying around in their living rooms watching white noise on their TVs, causing nobody any harm. I’ts farkin’ POLITICAL, is what.

True fing. Acting like a bunch of silly old men from the seventies is dull. And smelly.

If you need reasons, other than ‘You look like my dad!’, schizophrenia, lung cancer and excessive consumption of Jaffa Cakes are a good place to start.

Cannabis is obviously much less harmful than heroin, all personal subjective experiences aside.
Also, nothing should be free. And even if it was, a nation of cannabis users would whoop ass on ANY nation of heroin users. Productivity, baby.
All down the Line.

Cannabis is obviously much less harmful than heroin, all personal subjective experiences aside.
Also, nothing should be free. And even if it was, a nation of cannabis users would whoop ass on ANY nation of heroin users. Productivity, baby.
All down the Line.[/quote]

I doubt that validity of that statement, Mr Ginger. Cannabis makes one lethargic and unproductive. Have you ever seen a heroin addict on a mission? Jokes aside, heroin and cannabis are actually uppers after ingestion. The stimulated euphoria effect lasts a good 2 hours with heroin, but merely about 40 minutes with cannabis. Then both users dissolve into useless gooey apathy. Therefore, subtract 40 from 120 and you have 80 more productive minutes from heroin users. Useful, contributing members of society.