home

Is THC a Cure for Cancer?

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:25:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Reality continues to make it difficult for drug-warriors to demonize a plant that is at worst benign and at best medically useful. The latest evidence that marijuana is your friend comes from a Spanish study suggesting that THC ingestion "may be an effective therapeutic strategy for targeting human cancers."

Science would have been exploiting the medicinal properties of weed for years now, if only it didn't make smokers feel good. Isn't it time for the Obama administration to engage in reality-based policy when it comes to marijuana?

< Why Ward Churchill Only Got $1.00 in Damages | Trooper Teaches Parent How to Abuse Her Child >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Is THC a Cure for Cancer? | 45 comments (45 topical)
    A good question (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:59:38 PM EST
    and the study suggests it "may be" so.

    So it is not a "reality."  (And other studies suggest that it is not "benign" and may be causal to other cancers.)  

    But it would be good to get a better answer.

    Reality. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TChris on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    It is a reality that THC ingestion "may be an effective therapeutic strategy for targeting human cancers."  That is the reality that drug-warriors will continue to deny.

    Parent
    Okay, that sentence (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:26:30 PM EST
    in the link -- not the point I was addressing -- is a reality.  

    Either way, it is a problem to so demonize a plant that researchers can't get funding to explore its potential.  (For all we know, tobacco could be another one that could cause some cancers but cure others.  After all, there are many substances that can cure or kill; funding for research helps to determine dosages, extractions of useful from unuseful elements, etc.)

    Parent

    but not smoking it (none / 0) (#24)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:14:34 PM EST
    THC may be useful in treating cancer, but you don't have to smoke it to get it. Actually, smoking marijuana can also give you cancer.  It's fine to put THC in a pill if you like.  It's been already done as Marinol, and other, better formulations may come.

    Parent
    This sentence makes no sense (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:49:40 PM EST
    The problem with Marinol and pills is that one cannot control the dosage as easily with vaporizers or brownies.

    So what you're saying is knowing the actual amount you're taking (pills) makes one less able to control the dosage?   Really?   How many milligrams of THC are in one hit off a vaporizor or half a brownie?  Would you please clarify this statement?  

    Parent

    LOL (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by Patrick on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:22:43 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure that "stoned" feeling you mention is the goal of the vast majority of "medical" users.   Why would they want to avoid that?

    Parent
    Pretty sure, are you? (3.66 / 3) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure if you had to walk a mile in my shoes, you wouldn't be such an a$$hat about the "goals" of the "vast majority of medical users" are.

    Parent
    I don't know, DA. (3.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    People like Patrick are no better than Rush making fun of Michael J. Fox in my book. It goes well beyond ignorance.  

    Whatever karma is going to send their way is well deserved.  

    Parent

    Just because (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:43:45 PM EST
    it kills some mouse cancer cells in a petri dish, doesn't mean it cures cancer in vivo in mice.  And if it cures certain cancers in mice, that doesn't necessarily translate to a cure in humans.  The mouse is a model for human disease including cancer, but not all findings transfer to the human model (remember the food deprivation/aging studies a few years ago.  Mice live longer, humans don't).  The dose to destroy cancer cells in vivo may also destroy normal cells and, who knows, maye at a higher rater than other chemotherapy agents.  

    So it's too soon to tell if this constitutes a cure for anything but cells in a petri dish.

    That said, pot should be legal, IMHO.

    Sorry about the typos (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    I was trying to watch basketball and type at the same time.  Bad idea.

    Parent
    It isn't about marijuana (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:30:26 PM EST
    It's about power.
    Proof is when they start talking about drug tests for people receiving welfare, unemployment and food stamps.
    The drug war is often waged on the poor. So that would mean the folks that think up these stupid ideas, such as forcing people to pass drug tests so they can eat, are a bunch of bullies.

    Interesting article (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 09:32:01 PM EST
    It seems to point to two things. 1)that THC may help kill cancer cells, 2) and that by extension THC will kill healthy cells (which is what normal cancer fighting drugs do).
    Guess what? the fact is the US Gub'mint knew (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by SeeEmDee on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:53:45 AM EST
    Way back in 1974.

    That's right. I said 1-9-7-4.

    And here's the first study, done with US taxpayer's dollars, at the behest of the NIDA, performed with the intent to scientifically prove cannabis's supposed deleterious effects.

    Instead, they found its' primary component  killed glioma cell brain cancers...the same kind that Senator Kennedy and God alone knows how many others are suffering from right now.

    Remember, they learned this in 1974, people. How many could have been saved if this research had been followed up on? How many of your loved ones might be alive today? I lost good friends to cancer, and to think that they might have had a chance if this research had been carried through is enough to make anyone suspicious of 'their' government.

    Now, some might think this was a fluke, so the study was done again...in 1994. Same results. And this study, too, was effectively buried.

    And, again in Madrid in 2000, in Milan in 2003, and now again in Salerno.

    And here's a list of Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded

    So, tell me: why is it that something as momentously important as a possible cure for cancer not being announced to the world in ringing tones?

    Might it be because certain industries don't want any competition? And certain government agencies don't want their budgets eliminated?

    This is partly why so many drug law reformers are hopping mad about the smirking, snickering and tittering on the part of elected officials who remain blissfully ignorant of the roles they play in causing untold misery and suffering because of that ignorance. Or, is it something else, besides the ignorance of braying jackasses? Particularly when these medical studies have existed for, in some cases, decades?

    Given the existence of these studies and the neglect they have received from American officialdom, Americans have every reason to question the motives of those who use condescension, innuendo, character assassination, and the full force of the law to silence those who seek to point out cannabis's medical efficacy.

    This is and always has been much, much bigger than the mere idea of being able to freely ingest what you will as a 'sovereign human being'. This hits deep into major special interests' wallets...and they don't like it one bit.

    FYI, here's the study as published (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-Related Genes

    As with the Fred Hutch study implicating marijuana in a subtype of testicular cancers, the study addresses a very narrow category of a very diverse disease.  (The pancreatic tumor cells lines studied have gobs more cannabinoid receptors than do normal pancreatic cells.)

    And as with the Fred Hutch study, results are indicative of grounds for further research.

    Yes it is. (none / 0) (#1)
    by elrapido on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    It's like they care more about politics than science.  Not only that, but there's gambling going on at Rick's.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    Will they do it?

    No!

    Parent

    United States Joint Forces Command (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:19:43 PM EST
    As most of us know, all "research" that potentially favors legalizing marijuana comes from hippie freaks, and the latest example of a bus full of bozos trying to exaggerate the price of "the war on drugs" is the U.S. Joint Forces Command, under the command of their big kahuna, General J. N. MATTIS of the U.S. Marines.

    General Matthis, whom dedicated drug-warriors dismiss as "just another long-haired tree-hugging pot-huffing hippie Marine Corps General," has promulgated the so-called "Joint Operating Environment," purporting to be a strategic assessment of of something about the United States and the rest of the world, but rather than trying to translate so much hippie double-speak, I'll just let General Matthis speak for himself:

    The Joint Operating Environment is intended to inform joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense. It provides a perspective on future trends, shocks, contexts, and implications for future joint force commanders and other leaders and professionals in the national security field.

    This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict what will happen in the next twenty-five years. Rather, it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussions about the future security environment at the operational level of war. Inquiries about the Joint Operating Environment should be directed to USJFCOM Public Affairs, 1562 Mitscher Avenue, Suite 200, Norfolk, VA 23551-2488, (757) 836 6555.

    Ain't that a hoot? And what's the bottom line in the big kahuna's "report?"

    The drug war is turning Mexico into a failed state.

    Fans of hippie-lit can read the full report here, unless the DOD site-administrator was too stoned to post it.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#5)
    by MrConservative on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    But put should be legal nevertheless.

    TChris... (none / 0) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    ...is actually Jeralyn?  Who knew?!  

    Thanks for posting the study TChris/Jeralyn--whoever you are.  It was most interesting as was the website.  

    It's my thought that just as we need the popular opinion in favor of MJ legalization, we need the medical community to recognize it can have legitimate applications.  Studies like this help advance that.  If only in that, at some point, someone, somewhere realizes that perhaps MJ isn't just the demon weed and might just hold some promise for treatment of disease and/or management of pain and suffering.

    I've got quite a stable of Dr's and most of them are as worried about the AMA as they are the Feds when it comes to the topic using marijuana to treat medical conditions.

    Advance the science, advance the knowledge.

    A friend smoked pot all day (none / 0) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    every single day from the time he was a teenager and he got cancer - so I dunno.  It is not scientific, but regular intake of THC definitely didn't help him ward off skin cancer on his lips.

    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (none / 0) (#15)
    by shoephone on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 01:25:00 AM EST
    might disagree, in light of its recent study showing that young men who smoke pot are at 70% higher risk for testicular cancer.

    Oh, but hey, it's just Fred Hutch, the place that's recognized as one of the very best medical centers in the country. Considering the lives that Fred Hutch doctors have saved (including the lives of some of my personal friends) I think I'll put my faith in their studies first.

    apparently, you failed to read (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 04:39:43 AM EST
    the entire article. the researchers stated, categoricaly, that the study was not definitive, it merely opened the door for further studies.

    that said, smoking anything is probably not good for you, and no one with half a brain ever asserted it was. however, there were also myriad other factors they listed as contributors to the two primary testicular cancers, starting in the womb, and working their way forward.

    of course, it could also turn out that smoking pot is mere coincidence, having nothing at all to do with the incidence of testicular cancer in those respondents.

    i'll wait for the movie version.

    i bet nearly every heroin addict in this country ate snickers bars, before they moved on to heroin. one could easily argue, based on that empirical data, that snickers bars are a "gateway" drug.

    i'm pretty sure they aren't, but using your logic, i could reasonably argue that they are. probably cause cancer too.

    Parent

    Don't be flip with "mere coincidence" (none / 0) (#21)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    Fred Hutch doesn't just throw stuff out there, nor do they do scare-for-scare's-sake research.

    Study outcomes pass standard statistical screens, excluding coincidence at much better than 95% confidence.

    It could be a blip, but the odds are strongly against it.

    It could be an artifact of covert bias, such as cancer patients' increased propensity to acknowledge use.

    Chances are it's a significant indicative finding.

    Parent

    i have to wonder (none / 0) (#17)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:51:07 AM EST
    having read numerous threads and comments on this site about pot...

    when are people on the left going to stop perpetuating the idea that pot must be smoked and thus is of course somewhat bad?

    seriously, stop spreading the idiotic assumption that pot has the same cancer assumptions as cigarettes.  (Or even drinking tea too fast for that matter...)

    There are numerous ways to get THC, the most obvious way being a vaporizer. Sheesh.  (And no, I don't own one, or a bong, or have a medical marijuana card).

    It could cure... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    every disease under the sun and it wouldn't matter...it gives you a feeling some find euphoric and ya just can't have people feelin' euphoric now can ya?

    I think the point (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bemused on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:17:53 AM EST
      is best framed as paranoia over the often exaggerated dangers of recreational use should not impede research into possible therapeutic uses of constituent compounds found in marijuana.

     I also think this issue is best considered apart from the issue of legalizing recreational use.

      The goal of medical research is not to justify smoking marijuana. It's not to justify ingesting marijuana in any fashion. moreover, the medical use argument misses the boat.

       Very similar arguments can be made about heroin. Heroin has a well established therapeutic use. It is perhaps the most effective painkiller yet discovered. It's in Schedule I though because this country refuses to acknowledge that not based on science but because of the politics. Heroin would seem objectively viewed to meet the criteria for Schedule II (...  has a high potential for abuse; a currently accepted medical use in treatment...or a accepted medical use with severe restrictions; abuse  may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

      The reason it's not is because the CSA adds "in the United States" to the accepted use requirement and it's the government that says it has no acceptable use, even though it is used therapeutically elsewhere. but, even if the ban on the medical use of heroin was lifted it would not become legal to use it recreationally and the penalties for unlawful distribution would be unchanged.

       Marijuana on the other hand, despite a smattering of advocates and some very inconclusive research actually does have no currently accepted medical use, but the evidence for abuse leading to SEVERE dependence is lacking. However, that's the position of the government.

      My point being, that even if a medical use for marijuana as opposed to one of its constituent compounds is established, that will have no direct bearing on the arguments for legalizing its recreational use.

      Schedule II-- which is where marijuana would be if a medical use was found and the finding that its abouse can lead to severe dependence inclused a laundry list of drugs that are commonly used as medicine but illegal to use otherwise and carrying severe penalties for trafficking.

      Marijuana is no more likely to become legal for recreational use if a medical use is found.

       Legalization advocates need to focus on the relative lack of danger of use and the lack of potential for abusers to become severely dependent.


    Parent

    It is a totally seperate issue... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:13:33 PM EST
    unfortunately the powers that be don't see it that way.  Any medical study that shows potential is buried, any that shows harm is highlighted...because, in part, of the euphoria, and the discomfort that causes for puritans.

    Parent
    well, drugs (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bemused on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:25:28 AM EST
     ranging from opiate painkillers to anti-depressants, stimulants, sleep aids, tranquilzers and on and on produce "euphoria" or at least effects users find very pleasant and are all abused as well as used medically.

      In a society where people are told to "ask your doctor" about psychoactive drugs supposedly helping with everything from severe clinical depression to being a little shy, it doesn't seem that the pleasurable effects of some drugs prevent them from being allowed for medical use.

    Parent

    Key words "some drugs"... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:39:02 AM EST
    if its made in a lab and is highly profitable to pharmacuetical companies, then euphoric side effects are ok.  If it grows out the ground on the cheap, thats no good....no money in it, or worse, it could render more expensive drugs obsolete.

    Parent
    I'm not persuaded (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bemused on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:10:01 AM EST
      that the pharmaceutical industry looking to "protect its turf" is a factor. I don't think we've gotten close enough to serious consideration of legalization that the competing special interests with a potential financial stake are exerting influence one way or another.

       Might sales of Xanax or whatever decline if marijuana were available without a prescription to any adult? Possibly, but who can say? I'd suggest though that to make that argument you would have to concede that legalization would increase marijuana use.

       One thing that has really struck me in recent years is the very lax attitude toward the distribution of methadone by legally established entities. Whether as a pain medication or for its longer standing use to "treat" opioid addiction use  is skyrocketing in recent years and through both statistical evidence of overdose admissions and anectdotal data the dangers are increasingly apparent, but the government seems to care little that many of these clinics sell methadone with sparse physician oversight and little documentation of therapeutic benefit.

      Why is methadone, an addictive drug with psychoactive properties, a high potential for abuse and presenting a known danger of death or serious injury subject to less scrutiny that oxycodone or hydrocodone, etc? Why is being addicted to methadone preferable to being addicted to something else?

      Why all the attention on the misuse or diversion of other prescribed drugs but not methadone?

       

    Parent

    I would think that it would be self-evident (none / 0) (#40)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    that it's not just Big Pharma that is afraid of a re-introduction of hemp-based products - not just the psychoactive variety - into our petrochemically-dominated economy.

    Quite a few industries would be facing the very same hemp-derived competition from the agrarian sector as they had before the introduction of artificial, oil-based products, and would find they have common cause for working to keep hemp-based products off the shelf, again.

    For example, the support of various industries as, say, those deriving their profits from alcohol sales (which would be very threatened by legal THC-laden cannabis) has led to their financial support for 'anti-drug' organizations (the glaring hypocrisy of that should be evident to all).

    That a Prison/Industial Complex that has grown up as a symbiont of the DrugWar is a given. That it will work towards maintaining its' survival is also a given. That it is allied with bureaucratic interests, who face the same possible extinction, is also a given (who needs all those drug cops, agents and bureaucrats in a legal cannabis market?).

    It might be better to ask of our elected officials why the 1974 and 1994 taxpayer-funded studies that first documented THC's anti-cancer properties were shelved for so long. One might find the same actors from the previous plays still on today's anti-drug stage.

    Parent

    It is interesting to me (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    that basically the only plant ever tested for such stuff is mj.

    What if they tested corn husks or dandelion leaves or something and found 10x, 100x, or whatever, the cancer-fighting potential than mj?

    I guess we'll never know, though, because it seems like mj's the only, or one of the only plants anyone's interested in.

    This isn't knocking mj, it's frustration that out of the 1 billion plants in this world with possible medical potential, 999,999,999 are being completely ignored...

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    the answer is - so much is written about it because it is illegal.  Everyone knows spinach is good for you, but they don't blog about it because you can go to your local store and buy spinach without getting arrested.

    But science is not ignoring other plants at all, which is why you see article after article in science and health magazines about food that has health benefits.  Maybe this is more about what you read than what is written.

    However, as this is a blog more associated with the law than with food/health - it makes sense to talk about the illegal plants rather than the ones you can buy from your local grocery store.

    Parent

    Very good point. (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    I think you just hit the nail on the head.

    Parent
    I fact, just found this: (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    Journal of Medicinal Plants Research.

    Parent
    Hard to understand why TL (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    spends more time on mj than
    Chemical composition and antioxidant, antimicrobial, antispasmodic activities of the essential oil of Thymus Fallax

    ;-)

    Parent

    I don't think that's true (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bemused on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:00:44 PM EST
      I've read about stuff as mundane as oats and soy being tested for either prohylactic or curative benefits with regard to diesease.

    Parent
    Ah maybe so, what the hell do I know. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    It seems to me that many more people and money are invested in proving medical applications for mj than any - perhaps all? - other plants.

    Seems to me that there are probably plants out there that could be, in contrast to mj, easy-peasey out of the park home-runs in cancer treatment, etc., that aren't even being tested - in part because of the time and money devoted to mj.

    It seems unlikely to me that mj is THE one plant out of all the billions of plants that is the best.

    That said, if mj proves tomorrow to be the out of the park homer, I'll be the first to say See, I told you so!

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    MJ has not been allowed to be tested much during the WOD. Grants for MJ study have been routinely blocked by BushCo, and the onerous process of getting plants to test has been a nightmare for US drug research. At best really low quality plants get approved, and that is rare.

    On the other hand, for plants that are not Schedule 1, there is lots of testing, research, and money. All a scientist has to do is come up with a plan and they are set to go.

    Parent

    As the linked article by TChris shows (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    the US is not the only country with people that are invested in testing mj. The US WOD did not stop Spain from doing the tests the article references.

    Parent
    My Point Exactly (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    US research is not happening.

    Parent
    Cannabis is an herbal therapy (none / 0) (#55)
    by discouraged carol on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    Legitimate articles describing scientific work tend to be worded very conservatively.  If it said "may be" then they found evidence that cannabis has good anti-cancer properties. This is not the only work of this kind by any means.

    There are a good number of beneficial compounds in cannabis and a number of scientific papers describing work to classify them. In the USA at least our War on Drugs takes preeminence over science.

    My own experience with many herbals has led me to prefer them and to feel like my health care is under my own control.  That is important to me. Another great thing about herbal therapies is that there are many beneficial compounds in  them. This is true of cannabis as well.

    Pharmaceuticals often have one active ingredient that is targeted to a specific molecule. This is not always as great as it sounds and you can get some unpleasant side effects (sudden death for instance).

    There is an argument to be made that almost all cannabis use is medicinal.  

    All of this is also quite irrelevant except for the scientific interest.  What plant a person chooses to use and how they choose to use it should be up to them. A plant that has been in use for thousands of years probably has not revealed itself to be highly dangerous at any rate.

    Is THC a Cure for Cancer? | 45 comments (45 topical)