MJ Prohibition is Killing People

Deaths not treated by Cannabis

by Guard1an (not verified), January 03, 2013, 09:17pm

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/jan/02/who_was_killed_americas_drug_war

 

Would be nice to also perhaps try to cover people who could have been potentially treated by Cannabis, but because of Federal Law were not treated. While it would be statistically incorrect to capture all the number of deaths associated with each disease, it would be interesting to extrapolate, if only it were legal...

Marijuana Cures Cancer
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Quick facts regarding cancer: Approximately 500,000 deaths were expected for 2012. 1,638,910 new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in 2012. In 2012, cancer is expected to be the second most common cause of death in the US, exceeded only by heart disease, accounting for nearly 1 of 4 deaths.

Quick facts regarding Leukemia: An estimated combined total of 140,310 people in the US are expected to be diagnosed with leukemia, lymphona or myeloma in 2011. Approximately every 10 minutes, someone in the US dies from a blood cancer. This statistic represents nearly 145 people each day or more than six people every hour.

See USPTO patent number 6630507. "The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dimentia."

Quick facts regarding Alzheimer's disease:5.4 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease. On in eight older Americans has Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. Today, 5.4 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease - 5.2 million aged 65 and over, and 200,000 under the age of 65.

Quick facts regarding Stroker: Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States. More than 140,000 people die each year from stroke in the United States. Stroke is the leading cause of serious, long term disability in the United States. Each year, approximately 795,000 people suffer a stroke. About 600,000 of these are first attacks and 185,000 are recurrent attacks Nearly three quarters of all strokes occur in people over the age of 65. The risk of having a stroke more than doubles each decade after the age of 55. Strokes can and do occur at ANY age. Nearly on fourth of strokes occur in people under the age of 65. Stroke death rates are higher for African Americans than for whites, even at younger ages. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds.

Quick facts regarding Parkinson's disease: Each year, approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. That is 1 in 272 people ho have the disease. This number does not reflect the thousands of cases that go undetected. However, it is also estimated that 1.10% of the US population, or 1 in 90 people, have the disease and do not know it.
And that is the short list....

Read more ►

Pharma Market Protection- confirmed by No on 3 in Massachusetts

No on 3- an anti MJ legalization lobbyist group reveals prohibition is all about Pharmaceutical market protection- telling us that Sativex is ok while supporting maintaining the ban on natural MJ

http://mavotenoonquestion3.com/the-joke-is-on-us-or-is-it/

The first video is a throw back to major quacks as Harvey Wiley who banned the non carcinogenic Opium and Coca leaf, for the sake of protecting markets in pharmaceuticles and cigarettes. Plants as medicine are bad- nevermind the Bible's Book of Genesis. But pharmaceuticals are good- so much so that they must be protected by mis-defining people possessing or growing their own as "crime". Such is the big money reason behind such sorry excuses of politicans as Obama-Romney's contempt for public opinion and basic decency, debasing the judicary as accomplices to a costly and ongoing criminal mercantilism.

Read more ►

Mitt Romney's Selective Compassion

 

Ted and Pat Oparowski, citing Romney's compassion of visiting their young son with cancer.

The boy died.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2012/08/31/vt_couple_says_romney_helped_ill_son_before_death/

MONTPELIER, Vt.—A Vermont couple says they're grateful to Mitt Romney for helping them and their terminally ill son decades ago when he was suffering from cancer.
 

Speaking Thursday at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., Ted and Pat Oparowski, of Randolph, tenderly recalled how Romney befriended their 14-year-old son David as he was dying of cancer in the late 1970s.
 

Pat Oparowski said they would "be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern."
 

She said Romney, who they knew through their church in Massachusetts, spent time in the hospital with their son, helped the boy write a will and bought him fireworks that were eventually set off in Maine.
 

She said Romney also gave the boy's eulogy at his funeral.

 

Here un-cited is the issue of freedom of medicine and diet.   What about Romney's stance at our freedom of medicine and diet in chosing whatever agents we can afford for treating cancer?  Whether some pharmaceuticle.  Or some plant.

 

 



Consider the use of Cannabis Oil for treating cancer as promoted in the video- Run From the Cure


  

Considering all of the Republican Party lip service to fiscal sanity, is not it strange they are so in favor of continuing the big government boondoogle of drug prohibition against people growing their own medicinal plants, for the sake of a price-market support-protection for more expensive synthetic pharmaceuticel (patentable) drugs?

Read more ►

Cannabis Oil Supressed via Pharma (cigarette) drug war

Cannabis Oil shown to Cure Cancer
Please see this link to see 'Run from the Cure' about the use of Cannabis Oil to cure Cancer
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5169.html

Father talking about his son's suffering alievated by Cannabis Oil



Stephen DeAngelo talks about the Obama Adminstration's Eric Holder's criminal actions against Harborside Dispensary.


PROTEST the OBAMA FUNDRAISER - JULY 23, 2012
http://www.harborsidehealthcenter.com/

Read more ►

Dana Beal - Legal Necessity

The sheer injustice of banning safer substances for the sake of protecting more dangerous ones demands these prohibitions be nullified.  A legislative failure to respect basic liberties is no requirment upon the judiciary to follow suit, as our oath is not to the legislature but to the U.S. Constitution.

- some future judge

This was the basic defense offerered by Dana Beal's legal counsel, which was rejected by Judge Mary C. Gilbrite
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Necessity+defense

A defense asserted by a criminal or civil defendant that he or she had no choice but to break the law.


The necessity defense has long been recognized as Common Law and has also been made part of most states' statutory law. Although no federal statute acknowledges the defense, the Supreme Court has recognized it as part of the common law. The rationale behind the necessity defense is that sometimes, in a particular situation, a technical breach of the law is more advantageous to society than the consequence of strict adherence to the law. The defense is often used successfully in cases that involve a Trespass on property to save a person's life or property. It also has been used, with varying degrees of success, in cases involving more complex questions.


Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law. Some jurisdictions require in addition that the harm must have been imminent and that the action taken must have been reasonably expected to avoid the imminent danger. All these elements mirror the principles on which the defense of necessity was founded: first, that the highest social value is not always achieved by blind adherence to the law; second, that it is unjust to punish those who technically violate the letter of the law when they are acting to promote or achieve a higher social value than would be served by strict adherence to the law; and third, that it is in society's best interest to promote the greatest good and to encourage people to seek to achieve the greatest good, even if doing so necessitates a technical breach of the law.


The defense of necessity is considered a justification defense, as compared with an excuse defense such as duress. An action that is harmful but praiseworthy is justified, whereas an action that is harmful but ought to be forgiven may be excused. Rather than focusing on the actor's state of mind, as would be done with an excuse defense, the court with a necessity defense focuses on the value of the act. No court has ever accepted a defense of necessity to justify killing a person to protect property.


Most states that have codified the necessity defense make it available only if the defendant's value choice has not been specifically contradicted by the state legislature. For example, in 1993 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the necessity defense of two people who were prosecuted for operating a needle-exchange program that was intended to reduce the transmission of AIDS through the sharing of contaminated hypodermic needles (Massachusetts v. Leno, 415 Mass. 835, 616 N.E.2d 453). Their actions violated a state law prohibiting the distribution of hypodermic needles without a physician's prescription. In rejecting the defense, the court held that the situation posed no clear and imminent danger. The court reasoned that citizens who disagree with the legislature's policy are not without remedy, as they can seek to have the law changed through popular initiative.


The necessity defense has been used with sporadic and very limited success in the area of civil disobedience since the 1970s. The most common circumstances involve public protests against Abortion, Nuclear Power, and Nuclear Weapons. Virtually all abortion protesters who have tried to avail themselves of the defense have lost. The courts have reasoned that because the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected, it cannot simultaneously be a legally recognized harm justifying illegal action. In these cases the courts have also denied the defense on the basis that the criminal act of protest would not stop abortions from occurring; that the harm caused by the act was greater than the harm of abortion; and that legal means of protest, such as demonstrating outside of the clinic rather than entering the clinic or trespassing on its property, were available. Consequently, according to the courts, there was no necessity for the protesters to break the law. In the vast majority of cases in which protesters, trespassing on property, blocked the entrance to nuclear plants, the courts have denied the necessity defense on the grounds that there was no imminent danger and that the trespassing protesters could not reasonably have believed that their actions would halt the manufacture of nuclear materials (see, e.g., State v. Marley, 54 Haw. 450, 509 P.2d 1095 [Haw. 1973]). The defense has also been denied in civil disobedience cases involving protests against U.S. policy abroad, the homeless problem, lack of funding for AIDS research, harmful logging practices, prison conditions, and human and Animal Rights violations.


Necessity has been used successfully by inmates who escape from prison under certain circumstances. In Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the highest criminal court in Texas allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), he accompanied them and escaped. Even though he made no attempt to return himself to custody when he was separated from his cellmates, the court still allowed the defense. In contrast, most jurisdictions have held that an escapee must make an attempt to surrender or report to authorities as a condition for asserting the necessity defense. These courts have reasoned that once the immediate threat is no longer present, the action of escape is no longer necessary, and consequently it should end.

----

The judge needs to look at the basic statistics concerning the substance Dana is charged with possessing with intent to distribute.:

Marijuana is what U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young declared in September 1988:

“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.

[DEA Administrative Law Judge - 1988]”  ― Francis L. Young -- In the matter of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION, Docket No. 86-22; OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

The drug laws being based not upon science, are a denial of due proces and equal protection under the law.

Read more ►

Romney- Criminal Mercantilism for Pharma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot82v5Mqguw

Is OK with "synthetic" marijuana, but not the real thing- indicating that it is not MJ's properties but rather that it was something that people could grow rather than have to pay for a doctor, prescription and extra expense of a synthetic pharmaceutical preparation.

So this is what people consider as "electable"?

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/romney-crony-capitalism-on-cannabis.html

Read more ►

5 Drugs Protected By MJ Prohibition

Reminders that the drug war is all about Criminal Mercantilism

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/5-popular-but-harmful-drugs-that-can-be.html?mid=54631

Activist Post

5 popular but harmful drugs that can be replaced with marijuana

This article is dedicated to anyone that struggles with prescription drugs on this list because they are afraid of consuming a plant deemed illegal by the State.

Cannabis is simply the best natural remedy
to safely treat many ailments
The notion that any authority can determine what a sovereign human being can and cannot ingest into their own body is the very essence of control. Banning any substance from responsible adult consumption no matter how harmful should simply not be permitted in a free society.

However, certain substances are deemed so harmful by "experts" that they claim to adversely affect society as a whole and thus they're banned from the population. Of course, force of laws with guns and jails have never been able to eliminate their use throughout history. So, as a practical matter, banning any substance from society always tends to do more harm than good.

The utter failure that is the war on drugs seems to have ulterior motives besides protecting society, as evidenced by the countless harmful chemicals that are legal to consume. Marijuana is the most obvious example of a substance that remains illegal not because of health threats, or because it's a danger to society, but rather because its benefits threaten entire industries, especially Big Pharma.

If you need a fix to ease pain, depression, anxiety, sleep disorders and a host of other ailments, then a legal drug dealer is happy to sell you a chemical concoction with endless side effects. Recent studies show huge spikes in psychiatric drug use, as well as addiction to prescription pain pills, yet they remain legal and doctors get incentives to push them.

In nearly every case, marijuana is a safer alternative and just as effective. When eaten or vaporized, cannabis has proven entirely beneficial as a natural alternative. Here are 5 popular but dangerous drugs that could, in most cases, be replaced by cannabis.

1. Painkillers: Vicodin, Demerol, Oxycontin, or Percodan are used to treat moderate or severe pain. They're all highly addictive and come with side effects that vary widely from stomach problems, dizziness, depression, pain and spasms, to even death. Marijuana is a proven pain reliever that takes the edge off even the most severe pain. It is not physically addictive, has very few side effects by comparison, and has never caused a single death in 5000 years of recorded use.

2. Tranquilizers: Valium, Xanax, and Ambien are examples of popular anti-anxiety drugs. All Americans will likely know someone close to them who are dependent on these drugs to cope with daily life. The side effects are similar to anti-depressants and painkillers; stomach and liver problems, depression or suicidal thoughts, dizziness and confusion, etc. Marijuana is an excellent substitute for these temporary anxiety relievers, again with far fewer negative effects.

3. Alcohol: Alcohol is the most commonly used and accepted substance for self-regulated stress relief. It's used by countless Americans to take the edge off a long work day, and also by many soldiers seeking to relieve Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Alcohol is highly addictive and causes many long-term problems like high blood pressure and liver failure. Marijuana has proven to be far safer and more effective in reducing stress, especially among PTSD sufferers.

4. Anti-depressants: Prozac, Zoloft, Elavil, or Paxil are popular anti-depressants that a huge portion of the population are now dependent on. Side effects like nausea and sexual dysfunction are common, while suicidal tendencies are also increased tremendously, which seems to negate their very purpose. These selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reduce the body's ability to produce natural serotonin and can be difficult for people to find a healthy balance once they rid the drug from their system. Marijuana, although a temporary anti-depressant, is far less dangerous and may result in instant happiness bordering on silliness.

5. Aspirin and Tylenol: These commonly-used over-the-counter drugs for minor aches and pains cause stomach problems like ulcers, liver damage, and even death. That's right, Tylenol causes about 450 deaths a year and Aspirin causes a whopping 13,000 deaths per year from sudden bleeding. Many natural alternatives can be used for the symptoms that these drugs ease, and marijuana is just one of the safer options -- with none of the damaging side effects.

As you can see, marijuana, which can be easily grown in nearly every climate, is a huge threat to these billion-dollar-a-year drugs. And this list represents a tiny fraction of the harmful pharmaceuticals that can be replaced by cannabis. To claim that cannabis is more dangerous than any of these popular legal substances is blatantly false, thus there's no reason for its prohibition other than the threat of competition to Big Pharma.

Thankfully, you're not a criminal in over a dozen states if you use marijuana in place of them. And surely, it's only a matter of time before it's obvious to everyone that marijuana users should not be labeled criminals no matter what they use it for.

Read more ►

Obama Racketeering For Big Pharm

Dana Beal 2009 Protest at AG Holder's Covington & Burling at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW- from ANTIGONE

U.S. President Obama, and his U.S. 'Justice' Department headed by AG Eric Holder continuing to work against herbal Cannabis to protect potential markets in the Pharmaceutical alternative of Sativex.

They are bringing prosecutorial pressure upon businesses in States that have legalized some medicinal uses of Cannabis.

As Dr. Lester Grinspoon noted, maintaining the ban on herbal Cannabis (Marijuana) is critical for protecting markets in Sativex.

From Drug War Rant:

Some coverage of the recent federal crackdown

Federal crackdown on medical pot sales reflects a shift in policy (LA Times)

“They’re wasting money they don’t have,” [Sen. Mark] Leno said. “This is not the issue of the day. This doesn’t create jobs. This does not keep the security of the nation intact. It doesn’t clean the environment.”

U.S. targets pot suppliers who profit in state (SFGate)

Prosecutors target California’s marijuana trade

Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that marijuana legalization advocates had “misread the tea leaves” when they predicted that Obama would be friendly to their policies.

US: California pot crackdown targets large dispensaries (MSNBC)

As for using marijuana as medicine, Sabet said the proper path should be one where components of marijuana are studied and possibly approved by the Food & Drug Administration for use in pharmaceuticals.

Judge rules for pot dispensaries as feds threaten major crackdown

“This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office,” said Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president’s drug czar.

What about the possible elephant in the living room that may be found with an inquiry within the powerhouse Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. law firm where Holder served as a pharmaceutical industry legal representative, Covington & Burling?


Holder - Breuer Law Firm Long Involved With Drug Policy
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/01/holder-breuer.html

Covington & Burling's Continuing Involvement With Drug Policy Organizations
Longtime Tobacco-Pharmaceutical Legal Powerhouse
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/covington-burlings-continuing.html

Read more ►

Covington & Burling's Continuing Involvement With Drug Policy Organizations

Longtime Tobacco-Pharmaceutical Legal Powerhouse







http://www.cov.com/washington/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/21/marijuana-researchers-get-pro-bono-representation-in-dea-lawsuit/



(excerpt: dated Wednesday, September 21st, 2011)



"The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) has received free legal representation in a lawsuit against the DEA over a license to grow marijuana for federally regulated research.



The D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling LLP, one of the foremost law firms representing the pharmaceutical industry, has offered pro-bono legal representation to the research group to appeal the DEA’s August 15 final order in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. MAPS estimated the law firm saved them $175,000 in legal costs.



The DEA rejected University of Massachusetts professor Lyle Craker request to obtain a license to grow marijuana to study its potential medical uses, claiming that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can be the only one to supply marijuana for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated research."

The Drug Policy Alliance conference schedule devotes significant time to Marijuana, but with weirdly little for Coca , (even in 2011 the year Bolivia denounces the 1961 'narcotics' conference, with Covington & Burling, already known for advising the DPA predecessor DPF); doing significant work upon Marijuana, but nothing as far as I know regarding Coca, despite the tremendous potential for good.



The Covington & Burling website (Health page, early 2005) acknowledged the law firm's work with the Drug Policy Foundation and other organizations involved with drug policy reform:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html



Commonwealth v. Hutchins. We represent Mr. Hutchins and the interests of similarly situated patients for whom the medical use of marijuana is necessary, in a variety of state and national initiatives aimed at decriminalizing such use. We work closely with the Drug Policy Foundation, the Marijuana Policy Project and sympathetic members of Congress and selected state legislatures. American Civil Liberties Union - Drug Policy Litigation Project. We were asked to assist the ACLU in preparing a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency in support of an application by a professor at the University of Massachusetts for registration to manufacture or distribute controlled substances for the purposes of a scientific study on medical marijuana. Specifically, they requested that we opine on the consistency of the application with the United States' treaty requirements pursuant to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. We have continued to provide advice on related aspects of this matter.

That the firm would use the present tense

"We work closely with the Drug Policy Foundation, the Marijuana Policy Project and ... the American Civil Liberties Union Drug Policy Litigation Project"

in 2005, five years after the Drug Policy Foundation was superseded by the Drug Policy Alliance (by merging with the Lindesmith Institute in July 2000), appears to suggest that Covington & Burling works closely with the Drug Policy Alliance.



Notably, the Drug Policy Alliance has continued the Drug Policy Foundation's post 1992 malevolent malaise towards the Coca issue, and that'elephant in the living room' continuing mega boondoggle - public health disaster of pro Tobacco anti Coca Agricultural Mercantilism, embodied in U.S. statute since the 1906 Food and Drugs Act.





http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/09/continuing-powerhouse-alongside-federal.html



http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2011/09/continuing-powerhouse-alongside-federal.html

Read more ►

Obama's Continuation of Tobacco-Pharma Criminal Mercantilism- More

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/04/exclusive-doj-plan-to-arrest-state-licensers-tax-dispensaries-could-doom-medical-marijuana-industry/

[excerpt]

A recent letter from the Department of Justice (DOJ), threatening state employees in charge of implmenting medical marijuana laws with prosecution, has forced some governors to re-evaluate and even veto popular legislation -- all seemingly in violation of what the medical marijauana community thought was a cease-fire with the federal government.

Facing the threat of seeing otherwise innocent state employees thrown in jail, lawmakers are responding in an entirely human fashion: what Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), called "the old need to CYA -- cover your ass."

Ultimately, the administration's confusing legal position has led to a stagnation of medical marijuana reform efforts, with some states simply deciding it's not worth the risk.

It also represents a significant change in momentum for the prohibition reform movement as a whole, and one that's taken them almost entirely by surprise.

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo stating that it would not prosecute medical marijuana patients, suppliers or caregivers in states that have passed voter initiatives to legalize the drug's use -- so long as they were all abiding by that state's laws.

Earlier this month, however, the Justice Department sent a letter to the governor of Washington, warning that state employees may be prosecuted if they are in any way involved in the licensing of production or distribution of marijuana.

"The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department," department attorneys wrote. "This core priority includes prosecution of business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana."

"Any" without regard to efficacy nor safety, to say nothing of U.S. AG Holder's previous lip service to USC 10th Amendment values - the U.S. Department of "Justice" is guilty of reckless endangerment for the sake of cigarette-pharma racketeering.

Read more ►

Obama's Continuation of Tobacco-Pharma Criminal Mercantilism

Harassment of MJ suppliers and dispenseries;
PLUS permitting pharmaceutical MJ

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/20/big-pharma-set-to-take-over-medical-marijuana-market/

Read more ►

Dr. Grinspoon's Warning About The Pharmaceutical Industry

Excerpt of presentation the final day of the 40th anniversary NORML conference held April 21-23, 2011 in Denver, Colorado

Read more ►

Government-Media Supresses Info of Cannabinoids Kill Cancer Cells

This fits with Donald Tashkin's Reversal on MJ
Forwarded to me by Barry Chamish:

Cannabinoids Kill Cancer And Our
'Government' Has Known for 36 YearsBy GSA
4-25-11

Below is a repost of an article published on Americans for Safe Access website: www.safeaccessnow.org in November of 2003. The article describes how cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals and also kill cancer cells. Then it finishes off by saying that the US government has known for more than 35 years and that the media which would normally go crazy about a cancer cure story like this, doesn't at all and in fact seem to be burying the story rather than promote it in any way. I for one am amazed at the government's stance on marijuana and their failed war on drugs, which is more like a war on it's own country. I guess too many people get rich off of the war on drugs.

by Steve Kubby, Sierra Times
November 10th, 2003

A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.

The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumor.

The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo , a neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis: "Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. That process fails to work in tumors. THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias, melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die."

"But, that is not all," explains Dr. Russo: "The other way that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly incredible, and elegant."

In other words, this article explains several ways in which cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the article says, "Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.
Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a "cancer cure" ­ however remote in the future and improbable in fact it might be. But if marijuana is involved, don't expect any coverage from mainstream media, especially since mainstream editors have been quietly killing this story for the past thirty years

That's right, news about the abilility of pot to shrink tumors first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study - in the "Local" section - on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part: "The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
"News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article," complained MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan , who said he was only able to find the article through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. "The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors," added Cowan.

On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a carefully researched, bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing titled, "POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74." Media coverage since then has been nonexistant, except for a copy of the story on Alternet.

It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be used to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty years , yet it seems likely that it will continue to be suppressed. Why?

According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition . "If this article and its predecessors from 2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression of medical cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to rationalize it in some herniated way. However, there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values," Cowan notes.

Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many cases, familes exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic and expensive drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize that while marijuana has never killed anyone, marijuana prohibition has killed millions.

Read more ►

MJ to Go GMO?

http://glossynews.com/science-and-technology/201003060908/subsidi-farm-granted-usda-contract-to-develop-seedless-pot/

Read more ►