Why Pot Smokers Are Less Obese

[MSimon]

A new study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology finds an intriguing connection between marijuana use and body weight, showing that rates of obesity are lower by roughly a third in people who smoke pot at least three times a week, compared with those who don’t use marijuana at all.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/08/m ... dy-weight/

=================

Weight Watchers will be converting to Pot Smokers. Too funny.

[ladajo]

Of course the idea that folks who smoke pot more than three times a week are also more likely to use other harder drugs and/or cigarettes, and that in itself can lead to nutritional disfunctional habits and metabolic control issues.
I don't think I have seen a skinny crack addict yet.
Skinny yes, dead young also.

And guess who gets to pay for all that? Certainly not the addict.

What will these Zombie Parasites do come the "Fiscal Cliff Apocalypse"?
They will die out.
Yeah!

[ladajo]

And you certainly won't hear any Pro-Pot lobbyist talk about the real dangers of pot, you know which are similar to smoking...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20805059

Nope, they will certainly attempt to perpetuate myths that Pot is good for you. It will cure your cancer and make you healthy and even a better driver.

All total hogwash.

When will you figure out the whole issue is supported by a house of cards consisting of idiotic children with authority issues, and producers looking to enable them as useful idiots to make a buck (or million)?

How does it feel to be a Useful Idiot?

[MSimon]

Well actually re: cannabis smoking: nope.

In fact cannabis smoking is suggested for ex-tobacco smokers to prevent cancer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 98208.html

Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers

=====

You know - as this becomes more widely known people are going to be really pissed at the prohibitionists.

=====

And again - you make my point. Prohibitionists really don't know the literature.

But just to help you out I'm going to provide some links.

Epidemiological data presented last May at the International Conference of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) concluding that smoking marijuana, even long-term, is not positively associated with increased incidence of lung-cancer, is just the latest in a long line of government claims regarding the alleged dangers of pot to go – pardon the pun – up in smoke.

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr1 ... ntano.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html

Notice the date on the WaPo article? 2006 - you are running way behind.

BTW where are the bodies? i.e. patients in the cancer wards. You don't think the drug czar would be parading them if he had them?

While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/

BTW Tashkin is an arch prohibitionist. But he is honest. You might want to look up what he has been saying for the last couple of years.

Researchers at Harvard tested the chemical THC in both lab and mouse studies. They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, THC actually activates naturally produced receptors to fight off lung cancer. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

http://www.endalldisease.com/harvard-st ... es-cancer/

You think that people are going to like the Prohibitionists more when they find out daddy might have lived a few years longer had prohibition not been in effect?

Even the US government is getting in on the act. I'm surprised you never heard of this. Given your work and all.

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[14]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ ... onal/page4

Here is a page of videos if you would rather watch the "news".

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpr ... ince-1974/

Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74

In 1974 researchers learned that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice. But the DEA quickly shut down the study and destroyed its results, which were never replicated -- until now.

http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/pot_ ... w_in_%2774

Another fine addition to the literature.

=================

Note: the left treats guns the way the right treats drugs: one bad example and each side is off to the races.

=================

A blog devoted to: Cannabis Cures Cancer --- http://freedomgrowers.blogspot.com/

Lots of articles and links

================

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ather.html

The above is of course an anecdote - but it fits in with the rest.

================

Medical marijuana is gaining acceptance, but could it even help kids? Dr. William Courtney has seen it happen, and on Friday, told HuffPost Live host Alyona Minkovski about it. Saying he was "quite a skeptic 5 or 6 years ago", Dr. Courtney continued that "my youngest patient is 8 months old, and had a very massive centrally located inoperable brain tumor." The child's father pushed for non-traditional treatment utilizing cannabis.

"They were putting cannabinoid oil on the baby's pacifier twice a day, increasing the dose... And within two months there was a dramatic reduction, enough that the pediatric oncologist allowed them to go ahead with not pursuing traditional therapy."

The tumor was remarkably reduced after eight months of treatment. Dr. Courtney pointed out that the success of the cannabis approach means that "this child, because of that, is not going to have the long-term side effects that would come from a very high dose of chemotherapy or radiation... currently the child's being called a miracle baby, and I would have to agree that this is the perfect response that we should be insisting is frontline therapy for all children before they launch off on all medications that have horrific long term side effects."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 24898.html

From a very Rightwing site:

Rick Simpson, the man in the above mentioned videos, has been making hemp oil and sharing it with friends and neighbors without charging for it. In small doses, he says, it makes you well without getting you high. “Well you can’t deny your own eyes can you?” Simpson asks. “Here’s someone dying of cancer and they’re not dying anymore. I don’t care if the medicine comes from a tomato plant, potato plant or a hemp plant, if the medicine is safe and helps and works, why not use it?” he asks.

When a person has cancer and is dying this question reaches a critical point. The bravery of Rick Simpson from Canada in showing us how to make hemp oil for ourselves offers many people a hope that should be increasingly appreciated as money dries up for expensive cancer treatments. We are going to need inexpensive medicines in the future and there is nothing better than the ones we can make reasonably cheaply ourselves.

<snip>

In 1998, a research team at Madrid’s Complutense University discovered that THC can selectively induce programmed cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting surrounding healthy cells. Then in 2000, they reported in the journal Nature Medicine that injections of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas (brain tumors) in one-third of treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by six weeks.

Led by Dr. Manuel Guzman the Spanish team announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumors in rats by injecting them with THC. They reported in the March 2002 issue of “Nature Medicine” that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC.

Researchers at the University of Milan in Naples, Italy, reported in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that non-psychoactive compounds in marijuana inhibited the growth of glioma cells in a dose-dependent manner, and selectively targeted and killed malignant cells through apoptosis. “Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant anti-tumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent.”

The first experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s psychoactive component, 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.”

Funded by the National Institute 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 DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research even though 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.”

http://collapsereport.com/2012/10/10/sp ... e-effects/

Well that ought to keep you busy for a while.

Seriously though. Do you ever do any research for your screeds?

[MSimon]

ladajo,

How does it feel to be a useful idiot?

[MSimon]

Why do you think the support for med-pot is running in the 70% to 85% range? The word is getting out.

About 75% of Americans say pot should not be a jailable offense.

And over 50% say: legalize.

The end is nigh.

[ladajo]

ladajo,

How does it feel to be a useful idiot?

You tell me.
For every word I post to yours, I am guessing you spin back about ten or 100 to one.

For me it is very amusing. I do not get angry or upset at your posts. In general when I am replying I have a small smiile on my face (as I do right now).

The more you write your weak propaganda, the more silly you look.

You know as well as I do you can roll out whatever silly Google reference you can find to "back" your argument.

You also know that the preponderance of REAL studies show the opposite of what you argue and post. That is what gives you a job and you know it.

Fact: Smoking Pot is not an effective medical delivery methodology.
Fact: Smoking anything will significantly raise risks for lung related health issue.
Fact: Being High while operating machinery is risky and dangerous.
Fact: Habitual Drug users die younger.
Fact: People living with or in close contact to Drug users are more prone to criminal acts such as theft or violence.

and so on and so forth.

Argue away Useful Idiot. Try to make some money for the Illegal Producers Network that is fueling your fire. They could give a crap about you, they just want to capitalize on a percieved opportunity. Separate the money from the sucker as they say. And your work is helping them out.

[JoeP]

I know this is a General topics forum, but the whole site is technologically oriented.

Every time I come into General and read a few threads it seems more than half are pro-drug spam and links from moderator MSimon. It doesn't seem to fit here. OK, a one-off kind of post on drugs now and again would alright, but to me the number of posts seems obsessive. (Sorry, just being honest.)

I suggest it would be much better to cut down on such repeated threads on this one topic. Why not a single sticky thread "All drug / prohibition posts here." All new threads on this topic outside of the sticky are be merged or locked by the moderator when they pop up.

That way the forum would be more inviting to the interests of most of the community. People like me (and most other members) would simply skip over the one sticky thread on drugs and read the more interesting posts below.

For example, look at the massive thread on the Rossi E-Cat in the News forum. Everything about that subject is pretty much contained in that thread. Anyone wanting to avoid or participate in that subject does not need to see repeated small posts dominating the entire News forum about something which doesn't interest everyone.

[ladajo]

As much fun as I have sometimes baiting him on the Drug War sometimes, I do fully agree. The obsessive propaganda is getting a bit old
Granted General is General, but he does seem to go in spam cycles. When he is off doing something else, notposts, when his attention is drawn back here he spams a bunch of oft repeated garbage in his un-educated version of Subversion Technique, and then goes away again for a while.

I have on occsasion just ignored his Drug War posts, but admittedly, I can't help myself from poking him after a while.

I will make another honest try to ignore it again. But it is so much fun...

I apologize for encouraging the behaviour.

[JoeP]

As much fun as I have sometimes baiting him on the Drug War sometimes, I do fully agree. The obsessive propaganda is getting a bit old
Granted General is General, but he does seem to go in spam cycles. When he is off doing something else, notposts, when his attention is drawn back here he spams a bunch of oft repeated garbage in his un-educated version of Subversion Technique, and then goes away again for a while.

I have on occsasion just ignored his Drug War posts, but admittedly, I can't help myself from poking him after a while.

I will make another honest try to ignore it again. But it is so much fun...

I apologize for encouraging the behaviour.

Ladajo, I see nothing wrong with debating, even if it is pointless as to the results.

I think MSimon should take his moderator role a bit more seriously and at least recognize that his repeated posting on this subject matter, which apparently greatly interests him, are not really in line with a forum that ostensibly is about energy and technology interests. Isolating this topic to a sticky thread is a responsible way to handle it. Frankly, if I were in his place, I would be embarrassed to open so many new threads on a personal pet topic that is unrelated to most of what else is discussed.

On other forums, I have seen moderators due such things with political topics, which worked pretty well.

[ladajo]

To be fair, I also think that one of the things that make Polywell iteresting is that it is like a box of chocolates. You don't know what you'll get when you open it up. That said, I must agree that the whole drug war thing is getting tedious and repetative. I have felt more inclined of late to blow off those postings to a greater and greater degree.
It is very much like dealing with a child playing the "are we there yet game".