'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study

Posted on 16/06/09
University of Leicester

A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
"convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could
potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.

Using a newly developed highly sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry method, the University of Leicester scientists found clear
indication that cannabis smoke damages DNA, under laboratory conditions.

They have now published the findings in the journal Chemical Research in
Toxicology1.

The research was carried out by Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu,
Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B.
Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of
Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

Raj Singh said: Parts of the plant Cannabis sativa, also known as
marijuana, ganja, and various street names, are commonly smoked as a
recreational drug, although its use for such purposes is illegal in many
countries.

There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known
that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as
carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less
combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis
smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because
of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and
benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.

Writing in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the scientists
describe the development of a mass spectrometry method that provides a
clear indication that cannabis smoke damages DNA, under laboratory
conditions.

The authors added: It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke
can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists
were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our
research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in
both tobacco and cannabis.

The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has
significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale
more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
"The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same
degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco
cigarettes a day," the team adds.

"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis
smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of
cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the
possibility to initiate cancer development."

The study was funded by the European Union Network of Excellence ECNIS,
the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

1. Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William
P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer (2009) Evaluation of the DNA
Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of
Acetaldehyde Derived N2-Ethyl-2?-deoxyguanosine Adducts. Chemical Research
in Toxicology, 22, 1181-1188.

http://www.inloughborough.com/news/096266/%27Cannabis%20alters%20human%20DNA%27%20-%20new%20study

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

It almost certainly does. Everything we take in affects our DNA.

On Jun 16, 4:56 pm, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
> Posted on 16/06/09
> University of Leicester
>
> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could
> potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
>
> Using a newly developed highly sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass
> spectrometry method, the University of Leicester scientists found clear
> indication that cannabis smoke damages DNA, under laboratory conditions.
>
> They have now published the findings in the journal Chemical Research in
> Toxicology1.
>
> The research was carried out by Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu,
> Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B> Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of
> Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden.
>
> Raj Singh said: Parts of the plant Cannabis sativa, also known as
> marijuana, ganja, and various street names, are commonly smoked as a
> recreational drug, although its use for such purposes is illegal in many
> countries.
>
> There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known
> that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as
> carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less
> combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis
> smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because
> of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic
> aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and
> benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.
>
> Writing in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the scientists
> describe the development of a mass spectrometry method that provides a
> clear indication that cannabis smoke damages DNA, under laboratory
> conditions.
>
> The authors added: It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke
> can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists
> were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our
> research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in
> both tobacco and cannabis.
>
> The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has
> significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale
> more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
> "The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same
> degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco
> cigarettes a day," the team adds.
>
> "These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis
> smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of
> cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the
> possibility to initiate cancer development."
>
> The study was funded by the European Union Network of Excellence ECNIS,
> the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.
>
> 1. Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William
> P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer (2009) Evaluation of the DNA
> Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of
> Acetaldehyde Derived N2-Ethyl-2?-deoxyguanosine Adducts. Chemical Research
> in Toxicology, 22, 1181-1188.
>
> http://www.inloughborough.com/news/096266/%27Cannabis%20alters%20huma...
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

Life alters DNA.

WM
www.critest.com

In article  Dr John Watson  writes:
>'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study

Ah, yes, yet another in vitro study that probably has little relevance in
vivo.

>Posted on 16/06/09
>University of Leicester
>
>A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
>"convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could
>potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.

Except for the fact that many people smoke and otherwise use cannabis, and
have for many years, and no increase in cancers in the cannabis-only using
population has yet been found by any validated study.

>Using a newly developed highly sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass
>spectrometry method, the University of Leicester scientists found clear
>indication that cannabis smoke damages DNA, under laboratory conditions.

note the "under laboratory conditions".

>The research was carried out by Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu,
>Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B.
>Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of
>Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

Why does it not surprise me that this study is out of Sweden?

>There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke.

And it was known for decades before those studies that tobacco use causes
cancer, emphysema, COPD, etc.  So far the only demonstrated disease caused
by cannabis use is an increased incidence of bronchitis, and only when smoked.

There was also a study that indicated that cannabis use could increase liver
damage in those who have Hepatatitis C, but I haven't seen a replication of
that study yet.

>Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less
>combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use.

It is not often mixed with tobacco in the US.  From my understanding, the
mixing with tobacco is only widespread in Europe.

>clear indication that cannabis smoke damages DNA, under laboratory
>conditions.

Again, "under laboratory conditions".

>The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has
>significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale
>more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
>"The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same
>degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco
>cigarettes a day," the team adds.

But how many cannabis users actually smoke 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day?

And the bronchial damage has a clear link to increased incidence of bronchitis
in cannabis smokers.  However, there is no current link to emphysema, COPD and
cancer (lung or other) in cannabis-only users.

>"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis
>smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of
>cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the
>possibility to initiate cancer development."

Note that simple tap water can damage DNA under laboratory conditions.

So drinking tap water may be detrimental to human health with the possibility
to initiate cancer development.  I guess I'd better switch to drinking only
pure, charcoal-filtered vodka to preserve my precious bodily fluids...

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"When the government bureau's remedies do not match your problem, you modify
 the problem, not the remedy."

Dr John Watson wrote:
> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
> Posted on 16/06/09
> University of Leicester
>
> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that
> could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.

So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among cannabis 
users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In fact peer 
reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.

Slatts

Sla#s wrote:
> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>>
>> Posted on 16/06/09
>> University of Leicester
>>
>> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
>> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that
>> could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
> 
> So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among cannabis 
> users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
> I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In fact 
> peer reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.
> 
> Slatts

Links?

On 16 jun, 21:32, Tony  wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Dr John Watson wrote:
> >> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
> >> Posted on 16/06/09
> >> University of Leicester
>
> >> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
> >> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that
> >> could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
>
> > So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among cannabis
> > users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
> > I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In fact
> > peer reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.
>
> > Slatts
>
> Links?

For instance:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html

Tony wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>>>
>>> Posted on 16/06/09
>>> University of Leicester
>>>
>>> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
>>> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that
>>> could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
>>
>> So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among 
>> cannabis users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
>> I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In 
>> fact peer reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.
>>
>> Slatts
> 
> Links?
> 
       'It is factually incorrect to say that "all" smoking is
   unhealthy; categorically, cannabis is not only safe, but the
   research also shows that cannabis is beneficial to the lungs.
   As is demonstrated by both the specific laboratory/clinical
   research and long term empirical evidence, no amount of use of
   cannabis incurs harm to the user, it being both non-addictive
   and non-toxic. The studies, and mankind's experience throughout
   history confirm cannabis in any quantity for short-term,
   long-term or lifetime use has no deleterious effects on the
   users, either directly, or as a side-effect. (... Also,
   long-term use, "even prolonged and excessive", shows no harm to
   users, as in reports by Allentuck 1942; Freedman 1946; Chopras
   1957...) - The Report of the FCDA Europe, 1997

       "Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic
   use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the
   criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard,
   since it may expose the users to violence and criminal
   activity." The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and
   Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health.
   <http://www.ukcia.org/research/MarijuanaUseAndMortality/default.html>


	Dr.Tashkin(sic) has been unable to connect the use
of cannabis with more than bronchial irritation.
	http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html


	The red herring of DNA damage was first dragged across
the path of drug law reform about LSD in the 1970s as best I
can recall but caffeine and coffee cause much more damage.
	Coffee & tea not yet been outlawed along with the truly deadly
effects on your DNA of exposure to petrochemicals and the
the products of petrochemical combustion.

	           	  ___________________
		
                     It's time to correct the mistake:
                     truth:the Anti-drugwar
                     <http://www.briancbennett.com>

                     Cops say legalize drugs--find out why:
                     <http://www.leap.cc>

                     Stoners are people too:
                     <http://www.cannabisconsumers.org>
	            	 ___________________


     later
     bliss -- Cacoa  Powered... (at sfo dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

      "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
      It is by the beans of cacoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
      the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
      It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
         --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

On 16 jun, 21:37, sobriquet  wrote:
> On 16 jun, 21:32, Tony  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sla#s wrote:
> > > Dr John Watson wrote:
> > >> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
> > >> Posted on 16/06/09
> > >> University of Leicester
>
> > >> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
> > >> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that
> > >> could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
>
> > > So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among cannabis
> > > users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
> > > I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In fact
> > > peer reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.
>
> > > Slatts
>
> > Links?
>
> For instance:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html

http://current.com/items/90058270_dr-donald-tashkin-ucla-id-be-in-favor-of-legalization.htm

sobriquet wrote:
> On 16 jun, 21:37, sobriquet  wrote:
>> On 16 jun, 21:32, Tony  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sla#s wrote:
>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>>>>> Posted on 16/06/09
>>>>> University of Leicester
>>>>> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
>>>>> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that
>>>>> could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
>>>> So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among cannabis
>>>> users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
>>>> I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In fact
>>>> peer reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.
>>>> Slatts
>>> Links?
>> For instance:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html
> 
> http://current.com/items/90058270_dr-donald-tashkin-ucla-id-be-in-favor-of-legalization.htm


I know a couple who have smoked dope everyday for 32 yrs and they are in 
their sixties now. They are slim/very fit and have all their mental 
faculties intact.
The real problem is alcohol but the government completely skip over the 
dangers.
The highest (by far) cause of violence is caused by the misuse of drink.
The A & E stats back this fact up.
The government is completely out of touch,they have no idea.

sobriquet wrote:
> On 16 jun, 21:32, Tony  wrote:
>> Sla#s wrote:
>> > So were that to be the case it would mean the cancer rate among cannabis
>> > users (who didn't use tobacco) would be higher than non users?
>> > I believe that has been shown to be not the case several times. In fact
>> > peer reviewed studies show they have a slightly lower rate.
>>
>> Links?

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/05/24/18122.aspx

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study

It angers me that time and energy is wasted studying things.  All drugs 
should be made legal and available to all as anecdotal evidence has proven 
that cannabis is not addictive, not harmful, has no affect on mental health 
and is actually good for you.  Hell, even heroin is less addictive than 
tobacco and the fact that drugs users are also usually habitual criminals is 
pure fantasy.

We need less study into if things are harmful or not and more freedom so we 
can just deal with the consequences after.  Anyway....gotta run cos I need 
to sort out my house insurance so I can be reimbursed when a cigarette 
smoker burgles me for their next fix.

Noticed at Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:56:16 +0100: Dr John Watson informed us:

> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study

Full article:

http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/tx900106y

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:20:47 +0100: Aidy informed us:

> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
> 
> It angers me that time and energy is wasted studying things.  All drugs 
> should be made legal and available to all as anecdotal evidence has proven 
> that cannabis is not addictive, not harmful, has no affect on mental health 
> and is actually good for you.  Hell, even heroin is less addictive than 
> tobacco and the fact that drugs users are also usually habitual criminals is 
> pure fantasy.
> 
> We need less study into if things are harmful or not and more freedom so we 
> can just deal with the consequences after.  Anyway....gotta run cos I need 
> to sort out my house insurance so I can be reimbursed when a cigarette 
> smoker burgles me for their next fix.

They will continue to study these things until all research gives the
correct answer, like this one does.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
Oh look a "new" drug war study that supports the results it set out to 
achieve.

After submitting the "successful" report and getting their little brown 
envelopes they all went out for a few drinks to celebrate.

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:79ru9nF1s1vojU1@mid.individual.net...
> They will continue to study these things until all research gives the
> correct answer, like this one does.

Shocking, isn't it?  I even think we should bring back lead painted toys for 
children and asbestos roofs.  We just don't need to know if something is 
dangerous...everything should be available for the masses and anecdotal 
evidence will see us through.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:vfCdnYcsPvQSVqXXnZ2dnUVZ8mWdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:79ru9nF1s1vojU1@mid.individual.net...
>> They will continue to study these things until all research gives the
>> correct answer, like this one does.
>
> Shocking, isn't it?  I even think we should bring back lead painted toys 
> for children and asbestos roofs.  We just don't need to know if something 
> is dangerous...everything should be available for the masses and anecdotal 
> evidence will see us through.
>
The analogy, as so often with the things you write, is quite flawed. People 
being vindictively persecuted for private personal choices is the issue, 
everything in life has the potential to be dangerous. The only unknown 
quantity in the drug chemistry equation is that which prohibition has 
imposed.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a38cd6b$0$25441$586efd2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> The analogy, as so often with the things you write, is quite flawed. 
> People being vindictively persecuted for private personal choices is the 
> issue, everything in life has the potential to be dangerous.

As so often before, it seems you are missing the point.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:JYqdnVzZIJlUU6XXnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a38cd6b$0$25441$586efd2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> The analogy, as so often with the things you write, is quite flawed. 
>> People being vindictively persecuted for private personal choices is the 
>> issue, everything in life has the potential to be dangerous.
>
> As so often before, it seems you are missing the point.
>
>
Prohibition of some drugs has nothing whatsoever to do with harm 
reduction --nothing--

Once you grasp the fact prohibition is a policy based exclusively on 
persecution and punishment you'll see why I said that.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a38d07c$0$25448$586efd2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Prohibition of some drugs has nothing whatsoever to do with harm 
> reduction --nothing--
>
> Once you grasp the fact prohibition is a policy based exclusively on 
> persecution and punishment you'll see why I said that.

As so often before, it seems you are missing the point.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:55:10 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> They will continue to study these things until all research gives the
>> correct answer, like this one does.

>Shocking, isn't it?  I even think we should bring back lead painted toys for 
>children and asbestos roofs.

AFAIAA neither lead paint nor asbestos roofing are prohibited
substances, and it is perfectly legal to buy, sell and possess both
things.

There are quite rightly many regulations surrounding the sale to the
general public of items designed to be used by children, and also the
use of items and substances that could present a significant risk to
non-consenting or unsuspecting 3rd parties, though very few of those
restictions involve criminal sanctions.

-- 
Cynic

In article <4a37e2e8$1@news.cadence.com>,
 pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:

> Note that simple tap water can damage DNA under laboratory conditions.

It's got chlorine in it added by the government, and chlorine is a known 
poison.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:20:47 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>Anyway....gotta run cos I need 
>to sort out my house insurance so I can be reimbursed when a cigarette 
>smoker burgles me for their next fix. 

You're going to have to wait until tobacco is criminalised.

Svenne

Pete nospam Zakel wrote:

<SNIP>
>> note the "under laboratory conditions".

You may remember the study done in the US years ago at a time when one could 
get a lot of cash to 'prove' the government propaganda, (mid '60s pre net so 
I don't know where to find it now,) where it was found that cannabis 
"damaged" the brain cells of mice...? And how it turned out that the brains 
had been removed from said dead mice, cut up, minced in a blender, mixed 
with nitric acid and then a solution of cannabis extract was added. When the 
cells were examined under a microscope it was found that many were 
"damaged", thus 'proving' that cannabis damaged human brains!

Slatts

On 17 jun, 11:20, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
>
> > 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
> It angers me that time and energy is wasted studying things.  All drugs
> should be made legal and available to all as anecdotal evidence has proven
> that cannabis is not addictive, not harmful, has no affect on mental health
> and is actually good for you.  Hell, even heroin is less addictive than
> tobacco and the fact that drugs users are also usually habitual criminals is
> pure fantasy.
>
> We need less study into if things are harmful or not and more freedom so we
> can just deal with the consequences after.  Anyway....gotta run cos I need
> to sort out my house insurance so I can be reimbursed when a cigarette
> smoker burgles me for their next fix.

We need to lock up deluded idiots like you who are not just a danger
to themselves but also to others.
Maybe after being locked up for 10 years or so amongst rapists and
murderers you might get a clue about the individual freedom and
responsibility of adults to govern their own life.

Noticed at Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:31:09 +0100: JohnR informed us:

> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>>
> Oh look a "new" drug war study that supports the results it set out to
> achieve.
> 
> After submitting the "successful" report and getting their little brown
> envelopes they all went out for a few drinks to celebrate.

In the citations, they cite a lot of Tashkin's early work, but his recent
studies are ignored.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/top-anti-drug-researcher-changes-his-mind-says-legalize-marijuana

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

In article <h1b78m$agu$1@localhost.localdomain> "Sla#s"  writes:
>Pete nospam Zakel wrote:

><SNIP>
>>> note the "under laboratory conditions".

>You may remember the study done in the US years ago at a time when one could 
>get a lot of cash to 'prove' the government propaganda, (mid '60s pre net so 
>I don't know where to find it now,) where it was found that cannabis 
>"damaged" the brain cells of mice...? And how it turned out that the brains 
>had been removed from said dead mice, cut up, minced in a blender, mixed 
>with nitric acid and then a solution of cannabis extract was added. When the 
>cells were examined under a microscope it was found that many were 
>"damaged", thus 'proving' that cannabis damaged human brains!

Back in the dark ages when I was in high school I went to the library to
research various drug studies, and that was one of the ones I found.  Even
at that age I could see how ridiculous it was.

Another study compared the brain cavities of convicted felons who admitted to
cannabis use to non-felons who didn't use cannabis.  They found the felons had
larger cavities, and attributed that to the marijuana use -- even though they
didn't match controls by any other criteria.

There's bad science all over the place.  And even good science can be used
to reach totally bogus conclusions.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the
 crowd.  The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no
 one has ever been."
					-Alan Ashley-Pitt

sobriquet wrote:
> On 17 jun, 11:20, "Aidy"  wrote:
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>> It angers me that time and energy is wasted studying things.  All drugs
>> should be made legal and available to all as anecdotal evidence has proven
>> that cannabis is not addictive, not harmful, has no affect on mental health
>> and is actually good for you.  Hell, even heroin is less addictive than
>> tobacco and the fact that drugs users are also usually habitual criminals is
>> pure fantasy.
>>
>> We need less study into if things are harmful or not and more freedom so we
>> can just deal with the consequences after.  Anyway....gotta run cos I need
>> to sort out my house insurance so I can be reimbursed when a cigarette
>> smoker burgles me for their next fix.
> 
> We need to lock up deluded idiots like you who are not just a danger
> to themselves but also to others.
> Maybe after being locked up for 10 years or so amongst rapists and
> murderers you might get a clue about the individual freedom and
> responsibility of adults to govern their own life.


Cannabis must never be classified together under the general heading of 
drugs.  Cannabis is indeed a very powerful drug, but it is not legal to 
grow and use yet so we are really in the dark ages about this miraculous 
medicine.  Cannabis can be used for many treatments in the human body 
and even for the human mind.  But right now most people are content just 
to get a gram of it here or there and smoke it for immediate effect. 
All other drugs are the real 'drugs', but cannabis should always be 
called cannabis and never mixed together with all of the narcotics and 
man made poisons, but remember like I said, cannabis can be powerful too 
without the negative side effects of other synthetic chemicals.  I don't 
believe young people should mess with cannabis in a casual or 
recreational manner either.  When u look at everything else that's out 
there , cannabis deserves a LOT of respect.  Cannabis is the Tree.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:6ab6d3ff-0833-4730-90a2-cf34f101d83a@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe after being locked up for 10 years or so amongst rapists and
> murderers

LOL, the perfect irony.  You mention that jail is full of murderers and 
rapists but totally forget to mention all of the heroin addicts and habitual 
drug users in there too ;)

On 18 jun, 10:44, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "sobriquet"  wrote in message
>
> news:6ab6d3ff-0833-4730-90a2-cf34f101d83a@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Maybe after being locked up for 10 years or so amongst rapists and
> > murderers
>
> LOL, the perfect irony.  You mention that jail is full of murderers and
> rapists but totally forget to mention all of the heroin addicts and habitual
> drug users in there too ;)

Yeah.. those people (non-violent drug users) don't belong in jail, but
fascist cockroaches like you do actually belong in jail.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:d311f199-e7d6-4032-a07a-cbcc0742d9a0@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

> Yeah.. those people (non-violent drug users) don't belong in jail

Come now, we all know people don't typically get jailed for casual drug use. 
The type of user I'm talking about takes drugs in parallel with the many 
other crimes they commit as it seems habitual criminality and illegal drugs 
use go hand in hand.

Aidy wrote:
> "sobriquet"  wrote in message 
> news:d311f199-e7d6-4032-a07a-cbcc0742d9a0@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Yeah.. those people (non-violent drug users) don't belong in jail
>
> Come now, we all know people don't typically get jailed for casual drug use. 
> The type of user I'm talking about takes drugs in parallel with the many 
> other crimes they commit as it seems habitual criminality and illegal drugs 
> use go hand in hand.

What point are you trying to make? 

That using illegal drugs makes you a habitual criminal in other ways? I'd want 
some proof of that.

That if you're a habitual criminal then taking illegal drugs carries no 
additional risk? Yep, I'd agree with that. Doesn't really mean much though.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3kil6.5b0.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
> What point are you trying to make?

That people who take illegal drugs have low moral values ergo it is a common 
activity among habitual criminals.  60% of people in prison were habitual 
pre-prison cannabis users and 80% heroin users.

I guess it *could* just be a coincidence.....

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:19:41 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>That people who take illegal drugs have low moral values ergo it is a common 
>activity among habitual criminals.  60% of people in prison were habitual 
>pre-prison cannabis users and 80% heroin users.

A high proportion of violent criminals wear trousers.  Do you
similarly make a causal connection between trousers and violence?

The largest single common factor in the prison population is, IIUC,
poverty.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:6pjk355ucpemploabng3okqkgbd361rum1@4ax.com...
> A high proportion of violent criminals wear trousers.  Do you
> similarly make a causal connection between trousers and violence?

Oh, ok, it must just be coincidence that 80% of prisoners were heroin users 
before being banged up.  After all, 80% is not exactly a meaningful 
statistic.

BTW I never mentioned violence....I've told you before that almost all 
property crime in this country is to fund drug habits but you don't believe 
me so I know I won't change your mind.

> The largest single common factor in the prison population is, IIUC,
> poverty.

They can still afford their drugs though ;)  Maybe if they were not drug 
addicts and spent their money on other things instead they wouldn't be where 
they are?  But hey....that's another pointless thread where you ignore all 
reasonable observations..

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:44:26 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> A high proportion of violent criminals wear trousers.  Do you
>> similarly make a causal connection between trousers and violence?

>Oh, ok, it must just be coincidence that 80% of prisoners were heroin users 
>before being banged up.  After all, 80% is not exactly a meaningful 
>statistic.

Do you have a cite for that statistic?  80% sounds far too high to me.

>BTW I never mentioned violence....I've told you before that almost all 
>property crime in this country is to fund drug habits but you don't believe 
>me so I know I won't change your mind.

Please cite any post from myself where I have no agreed that the
majority of property crime in this country is carried out to fund an
illegal drug habit.  On the contrary, it is my argument that
prohibition causes propery crime, and is therefore a good reason to
abolish it.

-- 
Cynic

Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3kil6.5b0.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>> What point are you trying to make?
>
> That people who take illegal drugs have low moral values ergo it is 
> a common activity among habitual criminals.

That doesn't show what you think it does.

For a start, you'll have to define moral values. Then you'd have to show 
that a representative sample of illegal drug users demonstrably have 
lower moral values than an otherwise equivalent sample of non-illegal 
drug users.

Let's assume that you're right and that illegal drug users do indeed 
have low moral values. We'll also take for granted that habitual criminals 
have low moral values.

All you have shown is that some people with low moral values take illegal 
drugs and some people with low moral values are habitual criminals. You 
haven't shown that illegal drugs cause low morals nor have you shown that 
illegal drugs cause criminality.

>60% of people in prison were habitual 
> pre-prison cannabis users and 80% heroin users.

90% of people in prison were habitual alcohol users pre-prison.
99% of them were daily caffeine users.

What's your point?

> I guess it *could* just be a coincidence.....

It's not a coincidence. More prisoners use drugs than the general 
population. It just doesn't mean much.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:kqkk35931mkbu6fdc8lltg0ln5e1a5ds86@4ax.com...

> Do you have a cite for that statistic?  80% sounds far too high to me.

It was 82% but the figures were for 2006 so I rounded it down as I didn't 
want to suggest it was an exact current percentage.  Those stats are from 
the Home Office and are available via a site called google.

> Please cite any post from myself where I have no agreed that the
> majority of property crime in this country is carried out to fund an
> illegal drug habit.

You seriously want me to go through what are probably 5,000 posts from you 
on this subject to find where you have denied that heroin users are also 
habitual property thieves?  That's your burden of proof fallacy again....

> On the contrary, it is my argument that prohibition causes propery crime

And that guns kill people no doubt....

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3kln9.5e6.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> Let's assume that you're right

Yes.  Let's.

> It's not a coincidence. More prisoners use drugs than the general
> population. It just doesn't mean much.

Again you read but you don't comprehend.  I chose my words very carefuly.

Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3kln9.5e6.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> Let's assume that you're right
>
> Yes.  Let's.
>
>> It's not a coincidence. More prisoners use drugs than the general
>> population. It just doesn't mean much.
>
> Again you read but you don't comprehend.  I chose my words very carefuly.

Could you help my comprehension, oh wise one? What was the point you 
were trying to make?

You've ignored most of the post you replied to. I'll assume that you 
agree with it all.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3kpni.5kv.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> Could you help my comprehension, oh wise one? What was the point you
> were trying to make?

I was very sure to make aware that the stats were for drug use *before* they 
went to prison.  ie their use on the outside and *not* on the inside.  Your 
"It's not a coincidence. More prisoners use drugs than the general 
population" comment quite clearly shows that you didn't understand that.

On 18 jun, 15:59, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "sobriquet"  wrote in message
>
> news:d311f199-e7d6-4032-a07a-cbcc0742d9a0@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yeah.. those people (non-violent drug users) don't belong in jail
>
> Come now, we all know people don't typically get jailed for casual drug use.
> The type of user I'm talking about takes drugs in parallel with the many
> other crimes they commit as it seems habitual criminality and illegal drugs
> use go hand in hand.

Who's talking about casual drug use? I'm talking about people who are
bloody serious about cannabis and other unjustly and arbitrarily
criminalized psychoactive substances (like mushrooms) and for whom
such psychoactives and the freedom to govern their own life and mind
is a serious issue.
Locking people up for growing their favorite flowers or plants
(regardless if they grow cannabis, coca plants, mushrooms, peyote or
whatever) is a fascistic policy on par with requiring minorities like
jews to wear a label on their clothing so they are stigmatized as 2nd-
rate citizens.

Aidy wrote:
> "Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnh3kpni.5kv.usenet@greedy.zen175545...
>
>> Could you help my comprehension, oh wise one? What was the point you
>> were trying to make?
>
> I was very sure to make aware that the stats were for drug use *before* they 
> went to prison.  ie their use on the outside and *not* on the inside.  Your 
> "It's not a coincidence. More prisoners use drugs than the general 
> population" comment quite clearly shows that you didn't understand that. 

No, I fully understood you meant pre-prison drug use. Now what was your 
point?

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:WNKdnW4jxp9HS6XXnZ2dnUVZ8gGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "JohnR"  wrote in message 
> news:4a38d07c$0$25448$586efd2@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> Prohibition of some drugs has nothing whatsoever to do with harm 
>> reduction --nothing--
>>
>> Once you grasp the fact prohibition is a policy based exclusively on 
>> persecution and punishment you'll see why I said that.
>
> As so often before, it seems you are missing the point.
>
>
That's because you don't even have one. Troll.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:07:51 +0100, "JohnR" 
wrote:


>> As so often before, it seems you are missing the point.

>That's because you don't even have one. Troll. 

Aidy does have a point.

It's at the top of his head.

Svenne

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:4a3af2f8$0$5326$746ed12@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> That's because you don't even have one. Troll.

So add me to your ignore list.

"Ollie Clark"  wrote in message 
news:slrnh3lj04.6dd.usenet@greedy.zen175545...

> No, I fully understood you meant pre-prison drug use.

I think it's clear you didn't.

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:79sqtdF1ruhtmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Noticed at Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:31:09 +0100: JohnR informed us:
>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>>>
>> Oh look a "new" drug war study that supports the results it set out to
>> achieve.
>>
>> After submitting the "successful" report and getting their little brown
>> envelopes they all went out for a few drinks to celebrate.
>
> In the citations, they cite a lot of Tashkin's early work, but his recent
> studies are ignored.
>
> http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/top-anti-drug-researcher-changes-his-mind-says-legalize-marijuana
>
>
The delusion has to be preserved and maintained at all costs, so much 
destruction and harm has been caused by the policy that those invested both 
financially and fanatically against the perceived evil in some drugs simply 
cannot accept the crusade is a failure. It is inconceivable to those who 
perpetuate it that so much effort could produce so little result, what they 
completely fail to register is that a very great deal of the drug "problem" 
they are fighting is itself the fruit of their vindictive labours.

The costs to society increasing each and every year this nonsense continues 
will have to be reckoned with sooner or later, both financially and also the 
detrimental effects of prohibition on society as a whole and also the sub 
culture it has created which in turn has it's own subset of problems that 
will take many years to fully resolve even if this idiocy was ended.

On 19 jun, 10:43, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "JohnR"  wrote in message
>
> news:4a3af2f8$0$5326$746ed12@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > That's because you don't even have one. Troll.
>
> So add me to your ignore list.

You've been added to the list of fascist cockroaches that will have
to be eradicated if we are serious about establishing a society
where human rights are universally guaranteed and respected.

The most basic human right is the freedom to do as you please
as long as you refrain from interfering with the freedom of others.

Until you respect basic human rights like that, you belong in jail
along with rapists and murderers who disrespect human rights.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:88304982-8c18-42e7-8e75-0cb8ebe2cf07@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> You've been added to the list of fascist cockroaches that will have
> to be eradicated if we are serious about establishing a society
> where human rights are universally guaranteed and respected.

Will that stop JohnR replying to my posts?

> The most basic human right is the freedom to do as you please
> as long as you refrain from interfering with the freedom of others.

Really?  I'd actually say that the most basic human right is freedom to do 
what you choose as long as you don't harm others in the process.  However 
using your wording means it's fine to burgle and rob to feed your drug habit 
whereas using my wording it isn't.  So maybe your wording was intentional 
after all....

On 19 jun, 16:20, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "sobriquet"  wrote in message
>
> news:88304982-8c18-42e7-8e75-0cb8ebe2cf07@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You've been added to the list of fascist cockroaches that will have
> > to be eradicated if we are serious about establishing a society
> > where human rights are universally guaranteed and respected.
>
> Will that stop JohnR replying to my posts?

You won't notice them (since there will be no usenet access from
jail), so they
can't bother you.

>
> > The most basic human right is the freedom to do as you please
> > as long as you refrain from interfering with the freedom of others.
>
> Really?  I'd actually say that the most basic human right is freedom to do
> what you choose as long as you don't harm others in the process.  However
> using your wording means it's fine to burgle and rob to feed your drug habit
> whereas using my wording it isn't.  So maybe your wording was intentional
> after all....

Your language comprehension skills are rather abysmal.
Harming others (e.g. by breaking into their house and taking away
their possessions) obviously interferes with their freedom.
However, when we're talking about intellectual property, which is a
myth
perpetuated by the intellectual property mafia, there is indeed no
infringement
involved whatsoever when people exchange things on p2p networks for
personal use.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:3beebf95-7591-4a39-89f7-6a8af6125e91@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

> Harming others (e.g. by breaking into their house and taking away
> their possessions) obviously interferes with their freedom.

Not really.  It doesn't restrict my freedom in any way.

> However, when we're talking about intellectual property, which is a myth
> perpetuated by the intellectual property mafia, there is indeed no 
> infringement
> involved whatsoever when people exchange things on p2p networks for
> personal use.

What does that have to do with anything?  Strange people on the internet.  I 
guess I can also assume that as you believe IP is a myth you're not involved 
in an industry in which it is created.  It's funny how it is always people 
who don't work with IP that believe it should have no protection, only 
things that they themselves create should be protected.  I believe they even 
coined a word for it....hypocrisy.

On 19 jun, 17:32, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "sobriquet"  wrote in message
>
> news:3beebf95-7591-4a39-89f7-6a8af6125e91@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Harming others (e.g. by breaking into their house and taking away
> > their possessions) obviously interferes with their freedom.
>
> Not really.  It doesn't restrict my freedom in any way.

It does, just like your freedom is restricted when people next door
are allowed to own nuclear weapons for self-defense.

Owning property is a form of freedom (just like freedom of expression)
that is infringed when we allow people to confiscate other people's
possessions at will.

>
> > However, when we're talking about intellectual property, which is a myth
> > perpetuated by the intellectual property mafia, there is indeed no
> > infringement
> > involved whatsoever when people exchange things on p2p networks for
> > personal use.
>
> What does that have to do with anything?  Strange people on the internet.  I
> guess I can also assume that as you believe IP is a myth you're not involved
> in an industry in which it is created.  It's funny how it is always people
> who don't work with IP that believe it should have no protection, only
> things that they themselves create should be protected.  I believe they even
> coined a word for it....hypocrisy.

It's corporate scum who perpetuate the intellectual property myth that
lack moral standards. They have bought their way into the government
and abused the massmedia to brainwash people into thinking their
rights to exploit information commercially takes precedence over the
rights of individual people to exchange information for personal use.
It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has everything to do with a
need for a neutral and transparent government that can strike a fair
balance between the rights of individual people and large corporations
like micro$oft.

I'm not opposed to the idea that people who create new things should
be financially compensated for their efforts. I'm just advocating a
fair system of compensation, for instance by taxing the online
exchange of information and distributing those taxes amongst
rightholders in proportion to the relative popularity of the things
they've created.
Where I'm living, in the Netherlands, this is already the case. People
pay a levy on blank media (like DVDRs) which is distributed amongst
right-holders and people are free to download most things for personal
use (music, movies, books, pictures, etc..).
In order to exploit the full potential of information technology, it's
crucial that we abolish copyright and intellectual property completely
and start with the premise that people ought to be free to exchange
information (software, music, video's, books, porn, art, etc..) online
for personal use.
Just like libraries play a role in society to ensure everybody has
free access to knowledge and culture. The internet just takes the
concept of a library to the next level.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:1e52f2ca-d377-44f5-b7c5-c19eb7200267@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> It does, just like your freedom is restricted when people next door
> are allowed to own nuclear weapons for self-defense.

Are you....crazy?

> Owning property is a form of freedom (just like freedom of expression)
> that is infringed when we allow people to confiscate other people's
> possessions at will.

I can just buy new ones.  I'm not saying being burgled wouldn't be bad an 
upsetting....I'm just saying it wouldn't affect my freedom.

On 20 jun, 16:09, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "sobriquet"  wrote in message
>
> news:1e52f2ca-d377-44f5-b7c5-c19eb7200267@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It does, just like your freedom is restricted when people next door
> > are allowed to own nuclear weapons for self-defense.
>
> Are you....crazy?

Anti-tank missiles then? Or automatic weapons?
Where do you draw the line exactly regarding what people may use in
self defense? Isn't that sort of limited by how it affects other
people and their freedom to enjoy a life without fearing to get
injured by people employing weapons in self-defense?
Or are you suggesting your freedom is never an issue at stake,
regardless of what sort of weapons people are allowed to own for self-
defense?

>
> > Owning property is a form of freedom (just like freedom of expression)
> > that is infringed when we allow people to confiscate other people's
> > possessions at will.
>
> I can just buy new ones.  I'm not saying being burgled wouldn't be bad an
> upsetting....I'm just saying it wouldn't affect my freedom.

That's because you've got your head stuck up your arse and you don't
have the faintest clue what freedom is.
Freedom is a rather subtle and paradoxical issue that is always part
of a combined package of freedom and responsibility in relationship to
awareness/consciousness (your ability to know what you're doing and
assess what the consequences of your actions will be).
If the government would strip you of your possessions, for whatever
reason they deem appropriate, that means your freedom to own things
would be taken away from you  and you would no longer be allowed to
own private property.
This has unjustly happened to many unfortunate minorities in the past
and demonstrates that ownership is a form of freedom, just like the
freedom to move around, which can be stripped from you by the
government just the same when they lock you up.

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:079d6a7d-0b6d-4359-876c-5158d3c4dbca@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> That's because you've got your head stuck up your arse and you don't
> have the faintest clue what freedom is.

Oh, ok.

<uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Aidy>
<Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:32:49 +0100>


> Strange people on the internet.
> 

Some of the guestbook entrys made to the website shown below (that i 
dont make public) are clearly from whacked out space cadets who live in 
their own little fantasy world .


-- 
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk

I know it can change the human DNA into several added links that
result in turning the user into an alien being.

JohnR wrote:
> The delusion has to be preserved and maintained at all costs, so much 
> destruction and harm has been caused by the policy that those invested both 
> financially and fanatically against the perceived evil in some drugs simply 
> cannot accept the crusade is a failure. It is inconceivable to those who 
> perpetuate it that so much effort could produce so little result, what they 
> completely fail to register is that a very great deal of the drug "problem" 
> they are fighting is itself the fruit of their vindictive labours.
> 
> The costs to society increasing each and every year this nonsense continues 
> will have to be reckoned with sooner or later, both financially and also the 
> detrimental effects of prohibition on society as a whole and also the sub 
> culture it has created which in turn has it's own subset of problems that 
> will take many years to fully resolve even if this idiocy was ended. 
Did anyone notice that if you use a vaporizer, there's no smoke?
So, if  you do, studies on smoking are not relevant.

Aidy wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
> news:6pjk355ucpemploabng3okqkgbd361rum1@4ax.com...
>> A high proportion of violent criminals wear trousers.  Do you
>> similarly make a causal connection between trousers and violence?
>
> Oh, ok, it must just be coincidence that 80% of prisoners were heroin
> users before being banged up.

No, it's 40%
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors267.pdf

>After all, 80% is not exactly a
> meaningful statistic.
>
> BTW I never mentioned violence....I've told you before that almost all
> property crime in this country is to fund drug habits but you don't
> believe me so I know I won't change your mind.

Surely even you can see that is nonsense? For to make that claim that you 
would have to also claim that there was almost no property crime before 
drugs were made illegal and in the days/weeks after there was a vast 
increase in the crime. Which is not the case - So why do you make the claim?

Slatts

"sobriquet"  wrote in message 
news:1e52f2ca-d377-44f5-b7c5-c19eb7200267@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

>It does, just like your freedom is restricted when people next door
>are allowed to own nuclear weapons for self-defense.

to coin a phrase, on target



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marika" 
Newsgroups: 
soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.australian,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONAL TOPICS - Sweden's EU Presidency | Lisbon Treaty | 
Institutional Issues | Priorities


>
> "Frank Kalder"  wrote in message
> news:8058d3be-ae8c-41f3-a548-6178faf59de8@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> Reply to M. K. [ > ]  ~ e-glob, Washington, DC
> by Frank Kalder  ~ US+EU Community | Transatlantic Daily
>
>>
>
> . Sweden's EU Presidency
>
> Sweden kicked off its six-month European Union presidency, yesterday,
> amid fears the bloc's unresolved institutional woes may overshadow its
> priorities of tackling climate change and the economic crisis. [...]
>
> - Lisbon Treaty -
>
> Apart from Ireland, three other countries have yet to ratify the
> treaty.
>>
> They are Germany, where the country's top court on June 30 delayed the
> ratification of the document until a law protecting national
> parliamentary powers is passed, as well as Poland and the Czech
> Republic, whose presidents are dragging their feet on the issue.
>>
> If the treaty is ultimately ratified, Stockholm will then have to
> oversee the nominations -- and wrangling between member states -- for
> the new positions created in the treaty: a de facto EU president and
> foreign minister who will enjoy wider powers.
>>
> Despite the myriad institutional issues, Stockholm insisted that it
> would be able to focus on its two main priorities -- tackling soaring
> unemployment in Europe and improving the regulation of financial
> markets following the economic crisis, and reaching a climate deal
> with the United States and developing countries.
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i9F_KrbCewvwixW_0s-L9NXKGkXw
>
> . North Korea
>>
>> Korea was speeding in it's little boat towards the Hawaiian islands,
>> threatening intent to bomb it.
>>
>> This morning I saw they did an about face.
>
> ========
>
> No sooner did I wake up when these fools decided to launch 2 more rockets,
> both of which are supposed to be appropriate for such things as beaches 
> and
> ships.
> i think this is an act of unmitigated hostility.  I am shocked that more 
> is
> not being done Sanctions have not deterred their hostile nature in the 
> past
> and probably will be fruitless in the future.
> I am shocked that China has done nothing more.  USa is farther away. 
> These
> missiles are an over threat to China however
>
> ===================
>
> . Gov. Marc Sanford
>>
>> > On the Daily Show http://bit.ly/MXDjG [...]
>>
>> This entire thing has turned into such silliness.  He keeps descending
>> into
>> more nonsensical explanations, none of which was asked for by the public.
>>
> . News
>
>> Palin btw has challenged Obama to a marathon foot race.
>>
>> Karl Malden, an American actor famous for roles in Streetcar Named Desire
>> and on the Waterfront, of Serbian heritage, died today.
>>
>> Weirdly, Malden and Michael Jackson are both from Gary Indiana.
>>
> Michael Jackson is not to be laid out ... (s. Neverland amendment)
> http://haplifnet.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/los-olivos-overlooking-californian-pacific-coast
>
> ---------------'
>
>
> this coverage has displaced all possible rational discourse about anything
> important. I thought very highly of this ground breaking artist, but this 
> is
> just off course.  There is nothing on usa tv other than this.
>
> mk5000
>
> http://deshika.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/1809326_c020104b32_m.jpg
>

"marika"  wrote in message 
news:BOGdnSXaOIGQ99DXnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> to coin a phrase, on target

To coin a phrase?  Do people still not know what this means?  Buy a book and 
read it....

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h2ip78$2ae$1@localhost.localdomain...
> No, it's 40%
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors267.pdf

In 2003 it was.

> Surely even you can see that is nonsense? For to make that claim that you 
> would have to also claim that there was almost no property crime before 
> drugs were made illegal and in the days/weeks after there was a vast 
> increase in the crime. Which is not the case - So why do you make the 
> claim?

Converse error fallacy....I made no such claim.

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:jdadndwKR9WVXdDXnZ2dnUVZ8gCdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "marika"  wrote in message 
> news:BOGdnSXaOIGQ99DXnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> to coin a phrase, on target
>
> To coin a phrase?  Do people still not know what this means?  Buy a book 
> and read it....
>
>

Would "Mr. Lucton's Freedom" by  Francis Brett Young do the trick for you?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/coin-a-phrase.html

"marika"  wrote in message 
news:NfudnVBtiJn6v9PXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "Aidy"  wrote in message 
> news:jdadndwKR9WVXdDXnZ2dnUVZ8gCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "marika"  wrote in message 
>> news:BOGdnSXaOIGQ99DXnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> to coin a phrase, on target
>>
>> To coin a phrase?  Do people still not know what this means?  Buy a book 
>> and read it....
>>
>>
>
> Would "Mr. Lucton's Freedom" by  Francis Brett Young do the trick for you?
>
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/coin-a-phrase.html

Nah, bollocks.

The old offence of "coining" was committed by those who produced fake copies 
of coin of the realm.  So "to coin a phrase" actually means to copy a phrase 
and pass it off as an original.

I'm not saying that there are necessarily any dictionaries that agree with 
me...

References to coining:
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t16790226-16&div=t16790226-16&terms=coining#highlight

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7b6no4F22hbqrU1@mid.individual.net...
>  So "to coin a phrase" actually means to copy a phrase and pass it off as 
> an original.
>
>

Curiously, perhaps even astonishingly, in spite of all my limitations, i 
somehow managed to use it correctly in the original  :)

mk5000

http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/26/1/18

"Dr John Watson"  schreef in bericht
news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>
> Posted on 16/06/09
> University of Leicester
>
> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could
> potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.

Problems:

1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some
of the substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike
commercial tobacco.

2) Cannabis has literally thousands of years of human use.

If you had a dime every time a scientist found 'convincing
evidence' but no proof...

" The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to
damage DNA has significant human health implications
especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette
smokers, which increases respiratory burden. "The smoking
of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same
degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or
more tobacco cigarettes a day," the team adds. "

There are two answers to this:

1) No one I know comes even close to smoking 3 joints
per day. One is more than enough, if that. I have never
smoked an entire joint in my life. I've smoked bong rips,
which would amount to 1/4 of a joint or less, per day.

2) The stronger the weed is, the less you smoke of it.

What they're really saying, is that smoking 3 to 4 joints
is the equivalent of smoking a packet a day.

I wonder how that would compare to vaporisation.
If they were serious, they would applaud vaporisation
as the way to smoke weed.

" "These results provide evidence for the DNA
damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the
researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption
of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human
health with the possibility to initiate cancer
development." "

So why hasn't even heavy smoking of weed been
associated with developing cancer?

5trfg6h7 wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  schreef in bericht
> news:79ptl1F1r3bo1U2@mid.individual.net...
>> 'Cannabis alters human DNA' - new study
>>
>> Posted on 16/06/09
>> University of Leicester
>>
>> A new study published by University of Leicester researchers has found
>> "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could
>> potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.
> 
> Problems:
> 
> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some
> of the substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike
> commercial tobacco.

Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies - 
which is hardly "not associated".

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891
"Cannabis smoke – unlike tobacco smoke – has not been definitively 
linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with 
tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have 
been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis 
compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also 
been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in 
bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers. 
Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both 
tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have 
an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that 
long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with 
tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways 
that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no 
epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a 
finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted"


> 
> 2) Cannabis has literally thousands of years of human use.

So, so has arsenic. Lead was also quite poular with the Romans and look 
where it got them.

> 
> If you had a dime every time a scientist found 'convincing
> evidence' but no proof...

How about you pay a tax on your dope and FUND a study?

> 
> " The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to
> damage DNA has significant human health implications
> especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette
> smokers, which increases respiratory burden. "The smoking
> of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same
> degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or
> more tobacco cigarettes a day," the team adds. "
> 
> There are two answers to this:
> 
> 1) No one I know comes even close to smoking 3 joints
> per day. One is more than enough, if that. I have never
> smoked an entire joint in my life. I've smoked bong rips,
> which would amount to 1/4 of a joint or less, per day.

I know LOTS of people who smoke all day..

> 
> 2) The stronger the weed is, the less you smoke of it.

And the more that fills the room and is inhaled anyway.
> 
> What they're really saying, is that smoking 3 to 4 joints
> is the equivalent of smoking a packet a day.
> 
> I wonder how that would compare to vaporisation.
> If they were serious, they would applaud vaporisation
> as the way to smoke weed.
> 
> " "These results provide evidence for the DNA
> damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the
> researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption
> of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human
> health with the possibility to initiate cancer
> development." "
> 
> So why hasn't even heavy smoking of weed been
> associated with developing cancer?
> 
>
Because they get labelled as 'tabacco related deaths'

Anyway:

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=22473

The substances in cannabis smoke

Cannabis smoke contains the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens) 
as tobacco – at least 50 of them.  In addition, cannabis is often mixed 
with tobacco when smoked.

One of these carcinogens is benzyprene.  Benzyprene is in the tar of 
both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes.  We know that benzyprene causes 
cancer.  It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. 
  We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have 
faulty p53 genes.  The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers.

Cannabis also contains a substance called THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). 
It is the THC in the cannabis that changes your mood and behaviour.  The 
amount of THC in a cannabis cigarette varies considerably.  Researchers 
have shown that THC causes benzpyrene to promote the p53 gene to change.

"Sla#s"  wrote in message 
news:h1b78m$agu$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>>> note the "under laboratory conditions".
>
> You may remember the study done in the US years ago at a time when one 
> could get a lot of cash to 'prove' the government propaganda, (mid '60s 
> pre net so I don't know where to find it now,) where it was found that 
> cannabis "damaged" the brain cells of mice...?


It's very fortunate for the US government worker that for the most part he 
isn't worried about being sued if the study were inaccurate
exceopt...

Federal Practice & Procedure
Current through the 2007 Update

Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
The Late Charles Alan Wright[FNa2], Charles H. Koch, Jr.[FNa3]

Chapter 10. Threshold Limitations on Judicial Review
C. Sovereign Immunity


Link to Monthly Supplemental Service

§ 8404 Flow and Ebb of the Doctrine in Federal Law

Avoiding Immunity by Suing an Government Employee

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:pp0i35hbop7b9t2je7vi21jh0d461tkvo5@4ax.com...
>
>
> You're going to have to wait until tobacco is criminalised.
>


aren't we about 2 inches away from that what with the new FDA rules signged 
by Obama

mk5000

"up above the world so high
and everything you loved
and every time you try
everybody's watching"--goodnight travel well, killers

marika wrote:
> 
> "Svenne"  wrote in message 
> news:pp0i35hbop7b9t2je7vi21jh0d461tkvo5@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> You're going to have to wait until tobacco is criminalised.
>>
> 
> 
> aren't we about 2 inches away from that what with the new FDA rules 
> signged by Obama

	I doubt it.  Regulation and taxation are far from Prohibition.

	later
	bliss

"B Sellers"  wrote in message 
news:7bcnhrF22mnlfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> aren't we about 2 inches away from that what with the new FDA rules 
>> signged by Obama
>
> I doubt it.  Regulation and taxation are far from Prohibition.
>


 a feet and 2 inches?

mk5000

April Wheeler: Don't you see? That's the whole idea! You'll be able to do 
what you should have been aloud to do seven years ago, you'll have the time. 
For the first time in your life, you'll have the time to find out what it is 
you actually want to do. And when you figure it out, you'll have the time 
and the freedom, to start doing.
Frank Wheeler: This doesn't seem very realistic.
April Wheeler: No, Frank. This is what's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for a 
man with a fine mind to go on working year after year at a job he can't 
stand. Coming home to a place he can't stand, to a wife who's equally unable 
to stand the same things. And you know what the worst part of it is? Our 
whole existence here is based on this great premise that we're special. They 
we're superior to the whole thing. But we're not. We're just like everyone 
else! We bought into the same, ridiculous delusion. That we have to resign 
from life and settle down the moment we have children. And we've been 
punishing each other for it. --Revolutionary Road

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:38:23 -0400, "marika" 
wrote:

>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:pp0i35hbop7b9t2je7vi21jh0d461tkvo5@4ax.com...

>> You're going to have to wait until tobacco is criminalised.

>aren't we about 2 inches away from that what with the new FDA rules signged 
>by Obama

It is definitly heading that way, and not just in the USA, it's a
worldwide phenomenon. I'd give it 10-20 years before tobacco is
criminalised.

Svenne

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:f61355tesgs19hj0l90ei7et0fl1fuo931@4ax.com...

> It is definitly heading that way, and not just in the USA, it's a
> worldwide phenomenon. I'd give it 10-20 years before tobacco is
> criminalised.
>
>

It;s so counterintuitive though.  The tobacco industry would be a powerful 
stimulus industry

mk5000

"love me hate me say what you want about me
but all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you
seek Amy
love me hate me but you can't see what I see"--britney spears

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:01:31 -0400, "marika" 
wrote:

>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:f61355tesgs19hj0l90ei7et0fl1fuo931@4ax.com...
>
>> It is definitly heading that way, and not just in the USA, it's a
>> worldwide phenomenon. I'd give it 10-20 years before tobacco is
>> criminalised.

>It;s so counterintuitive though.  The tobacco industry would be a powerful 
>stimulus industry

Prohibition isn't about making sense, fiscal or otherwise.

It's about stomping down on sin.

That's a very powerful motivator. It gives a heady rush that people
will sacrifice a lot for.

Svenne

In article ,
 "marika"  wrote:

> "Svenne"  wrote in message 
> news:f61355tesgs19hj0l90ei7et0fl1fuo931@4ax.com...
> 
> > It is definitly heading that way, and not just in the USA, it's a
> > worldwide phenomenon. I'd give it 10-20 years before tobacco is
> > criminalised.
> >
> >
> 
> It;s so counterintuitive though.  The tobacco industry would be a powerful 
> stimulus industry
> 

And smokers save the government money by dying early.

"Blah"  wrote in message
news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...

> > Problems:
> >
> > 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some
> > of the substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike
> > commercial tobacco.
>
> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
> which is hardly "not associated".

How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because
there is no association? There could be a lack of studies
and no association.

> http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891
> "Cannabis smoke – unlike tobacco smoke – has not been definitively
> linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with
> tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have
> been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis
> compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also
> been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in
> bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers.
> Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both
> tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have
> an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that
> long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with
> tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways
> that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no
> epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a
> finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted"
>
>
> >
> > 2) Cannabis has literally thousands of years of human use.
>
> So, so has arsenic. Lead was also quite poular with the Romans and look
> where it got them.

And as a result, we know the effects of both
arsenic and lead on human health. In fact, even
the Romans knew that using lead in the water
system had bad effects on human health.

By contrast, there are no ill health effects
known from ancient literature coming from hemp.

>
> >
> > If you had a dime every time a scientist found 'convincing
> > evidence' but no proof...
>
> How about you pay a tax on your dope and FUND a study?
>
> >
> > " The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to
> > damage DNA has significant human health implications
> > especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette
> > smokers, which increases respiratory burden. "The smoking
> > of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same
> > degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or
> > more tobacco cigarettes a day," the team adds. "
> >
> > There are two answers to this:
> >
> > 1) No one I know comes even close to smoking 3 joints
> > per day. One is more than enough, if that. I have never
> > smoked an entire joint in my life. I've smoked bong rips,
> > which would amount to 1/4 of a joint or less, per day.
>
> I know LOTS of people who smoke all day..

Not my weed. :)


> > 2) The stronger the weed is, the less you smoke of it.
>
> And the more that fills the room and is inhaled anyway.

No. :) I have never smoked an entire joint in my life.
I smoke about 1/8th to 1/4 of a regular cigarette, which
keeps me high for 3 to 4 hours, at the end of the day.

> > What they're really saying, is that smoking 3 to 4 joints
> > is the equivalent of smoking a packet a day.
> >
> > I wonder how that would compare to vaporisation.
> > If they were serious, they would applaud vaporisation
> > as the way to smoke weed.
> >
> > " "These results provide evidence for the DNA
> > damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the
> > researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption
> > of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human
> > health with the possibility to initiate cancer
> > development." "
> >
> > So why hasn't even heavy smoking of weed been
> > associated with developing cancer?
> >
> Because they get labelled as 'tabacco related deaths'

There are enough people who smoke weed
without tobacco.

> Anyway:
>
> http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=22473
>
> The substances in cannabis smoke
>
> Cannabis smoke contains the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens)
> as tobacco – at least 50 of them.  In addition, cannabis is often mixed
> with tobacco when smoked.
>
> One of these carcinogens is benzyprene.  Benzyprene is in the tar of
> both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes.  We know that benzyprene causes
> cancer.  It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene.
>   We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have
> faulty p53 genes.  The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers.
>
> Cannabis also contains a substance called THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).
> It is the THC in the cannabis that changes your mood and behaviour.  The
> amount of THC in a cannabis cigarette varies considerably.  Researchers
> have shown that THC causes benzpyrene to promote the p53 gene to change.

So what are the cancers associated specifically with marijuana use?

Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:

> "Blah"  wrote in message
> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> > Problems:
>> >
>> > 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>> > substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>
>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>> which is hardly "not associated".
> 
> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.

Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't cause
cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
> 
>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> Problems:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
> 
> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't cause
> cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links

Three years later he says:
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-feds-top-pot-researcher-says-marijuana-should-be-legal

I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think 
it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes 
far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more 
harm (than marijuana)."

"I wouln't encourage anybody to smoke any substance"...

Well there you have it....Bit different to  - "its good for you"!

> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
> 

LOL did you post that as PROOF?

"Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows"


Kills you half as quick?

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
> 
>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> Problems:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
> 
> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't cause
> cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
> 

What about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years 
Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521145539.htm

Marijuana worsens breathing problems in current smokers with chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.


Lovely, can you roll me one? cough cough

On 28 jul, 00:24, Blah  wrote:
> Dr John Watson wrote:
> > Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>
> >> "Blah"  wrote in message
> >>news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>>> Problems:
>
> >>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
> >>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
> >>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
> >>> which is hardly "not associated".
> >> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
> >> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
>
> > Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't cause
> > cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no...
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
>
> What about:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm
>
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years
> Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521145539.htm
>
> Marijuana worsens breathing problems in current smokers with chronic
> obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.
>
> Lovely, can you roll me one? cough cough


If you look for studies that confirm your assumptions that's not so
hard.
If you overlook all the studies and see which ones stand up to
scientific scrutiny, there is not much left to make a case for the
harmfulness of cannabis.

http://www.pdxnorml.org/Exposing_index_1095.html

Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:20:05 +0100: Blah informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>> 
>>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>> Problems:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
>> 
>> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't
>> cause cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
>> 
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links
> 
> Three years later he says:
> http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-feds-top-pot-researcher-says-marijuana-should-be-legal
> 
> I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think
> it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes
> far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more
> harm (than marijuana)."
> 
> "I wouln't encourage anybody to smoke any substance"...
> 
> Well there you have it....Bit different to  - "its good for you"!

Who says it's good for you? It certainly causes bronchitis, which is bad
for you. This is about cancer.

>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
>> 
>> 
> LOL did you post that as PROOF?
> 
> "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows"
> 
> 
> Kills you half as quick?

They've shown pre-cancerous lesions in the lungs of marijuana-only
smokers. The cancer cannot get started as the THC causes apoptosis (cell
death).

http://waveworldorg.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/thc-directly-induces-apoptosis-in-cancer-cells/

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:24:08 +0100: Blah informed us:

> What about:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm
> 
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years
> Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers

Here's the original:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119415132/abstract

Methods:  We report a series of 10 patients (mean age 41 ± 9 years, eight
male, two female), who presented over a period of 12 months to our
respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to
regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1 year continuously). Symptoms on
presentation were dyspnoea (n = 4), pneumothorax (n = 4) and chest
infection (n = 2).

A sample of 10 is not statistically significant, the Tashkin study was of
2,000 people.


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521145539.htm
> 
> Marijuana worsens breathing problems in current smokers with chronic
> obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

The study found that among people 40 and older, smokers were
two-and-a-half times as likely as nonsmokers to develop COPD, while
smoking cigarettes and marijuana together boosted the odds of developing
COPD to three-and-a-half times the risk of someone who did not smoke
either cigarettes or marijuana--in other words, adding marijuana smoking
to cigarette smoking increased the risk by one-third, says Wan Tan, M.D.,
of St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia.


I see no mention of the increased rate in marijuana-only smokers. I would
expect it to be less than for tobacco, mainly because few people smoke 20
joints a day.

> Lovely, can you roll me one? cough cough

Certainly, but I don't use tobacco.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:20:05 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>>>
>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>>>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>>> Problems:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>>>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>>>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
>>> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't
>>> cause cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links
>> Three years later he says:
>> http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-feds-top-pot-researcher-says-marijuana-should-be-legal
>>
>> I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think
>> it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes
>> far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more
>> harm (than marijuana)."
>>
>> "I wouln't encourage anybody to smoke any substance"...
>>
>> Well there you have it....Bit different to  - "its good for you"!
> 
> Who says it's good for you? It certainly causes bronchitis, which is bad
> for you. This is about cancer.
> 
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
>>>
>>>
>> LOL did you post that as PROOF?
>>
>> "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows"
>>
>>
>> Kills you half as quick?
> 
> They've shown pre-cancerous lesions in the lungs of marijuana-only
> smokers. The cancer cannot get started as the THC causes apoptosis (cell
> death).
> 
> http://waveworldorg.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/thc-directly-induces-apoptosis-in-cancer-cells/
> 

Whatever - I post a link that SHOWS cancer still spreading, albeit half 
as fast - you want to smoke something that kills of cells...hmmm - carry on.

Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:52:23 +0100: Blah informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:20:05 +0100: Blah informed us:
>> 
>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>>>>
>>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problems:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>>>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>>>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>>>>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>>>>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
>>>> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't
>>>> cause cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links
>>> Three years later he says:
>>> http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-feds-top-pot-researcher-says-marijuana-should-be-legal
>>>
>>> I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think
>>> it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes
>>> far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more
>>> harm (than marijuana)."
>>>
>>> "I wouln't encourage anybody to smoke any substance"...
>>>
>>> Well there you have it....Bit different to  - "its good for you"!
>> 
>> Who says it's good for you? It certainly causes bronchitis, which is bad
>> for you. This is about cancer.
>> 
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>> LOL did you post that as PROOF?
>>>
>>> "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows"
>>>
>>>
>>> Kills you half as quick?
>> 
>> They've shown pre-cancerous lesions in the lungs of marijuana-only
>> smokers. The cancer cannot get started as the THC causes apoptosis (cell
>> death).
>> 
>> http://waveworldorg.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/thc-directly-induces-apoptosis-in-cancer-cells/
>> 
> 
> Whatever - I post a link that SHOWS cancer still spreading, albeit half 
> as fast - you want to smoke something that kills of cells...hmmm - carry on.

I was trying to explain the science behind smoked tobacco causing cancer
and smoked cannabis, which is almost the same except cannabinoids replace
the nicotinoids, not causing cancer. Nicotine is carcinogenic,
cannabinoids are anti-carcinogenic through cancer cell death.

Carry on.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:52:23 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:20:05 +0100: Blah informed us:
>>>
>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problems:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>>>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>>>>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>>>>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>>>>>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>>>>>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
>>>>> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't
>>>>> cause cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links
>>>> Three years later he says:
>>>> http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-feds-top-pot-researcher-says-marijuana-should-be-legal
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think
>>>> it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes
>>>> far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more
>>>> harm (than marijuana)."
>>>>
>>>> "I wouln't encourage anybody to smoke any substance"...
>>>>
>>>> Well there you have it....Bit different to  - "its good for you"!
>>> Who says it's good for you? It certainly causes bronchitis, which is bad
>>> for you. This is about cancer.
>>>
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> LOL did you post that as PROOF?
>>>>
>>>> "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kills you half as quick?
>>> They've shown pre-cancerous lesions in the lungs of marijuana-only
>>> smokers. The cancer cannot get started as the THC causes apoptosis (cell
>>> death).
>>>
>>> http://waveworldorg.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/thc-directly-induces-apoptosis-in-cancer-cells/
>>>
>> Whatever - I post a link that SHOWS cancer still spreading, albeit half 
>> as fast - you want to smoke something that kills of cells...hmmm - carry on.
> 
> I was trying to explain the science behind smoked tobacco causing cancer
> and smoked cannabis, which is almost the same except cannabinoids replace
> the nicotinoids, not causing cancer. Nicotine is carcinogenic,
> cannabinoids are anti-carcinogenic through cancer cell death.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
	Er the tobacco smoke has other carcinogens as does cannabis smoke, 
but very few cannabis users are doing 20 to 40 joints per
day as many tobacco smokers used to do commonly (a pack a day or 2 
packs per day habit.)
	People also get lung cancer from other causes too you know.
Some people are more susceptible to lung cancer because of inheritance.

	No drug has worse effects on a free society than the drug of
prohibition which is a societal cancer, imo.

	later
	bliss

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:52:23 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:20:05 +0100: Blah informed us:
>>>
>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>>> Noticed at Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:35:13 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7b9qrqF22n6ncU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problems:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Cannabis use is not associated with cancers, and some of the
>>>>>>>> substances are anti-carcinogenic in mice. Unlike commercial tobacco.
>>>>>>> Has not been conclusively assosociated - due to a lack of studies -
>>>>>>> which is hardly "not associated".
>>>>>> How do you know it's due to lack of studies, not because there is no
>>>>>> association? There could be a lack of studies and no association.
>>>>> Here's a large study that proves conclusively that cannabis doesn't
>>>>> cause cancers (because THC kills tumours as they develop):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link&modsrc=related_links
>>>> Three years later he says:
>>>> http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-feds-top-pot-researcher-says-marijuana-should-be-legal
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think
>>>> it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes
>>>> far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more
>>>> harm (than marijuana)."
>>>>
>>>> "I wouln't encourage anybody to smoke any substance"...
>>>>
>>>> Well there you have it....Bit different to  - "its good for you"!
>>> Who says it's good for you? It certainly causes bronchitis, which is bad
>>> for you. This is about cancer.
>>>
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> LOL did you post that as PROOF?
>>>>
>>>> "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kills you half as quick?
>>> They've shown pre-cancerous lesions in the lungs of marijuana-only
>>> smokers. The cancer cannot get started as the THC causes apoptosis (cell
>>> death).
>>>
>>> http://waveworldorg.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/thc-directly-induces-apoptosis-in-cancer-cells/
>>>
>> Whatever - I post a link that SHOWS cancer still spreading, albeit half 
>> as fast - you want to smoke something that kills of cells...hmmm - carry on.
> 
> I was trying to explain the science behind smoked tobacco causing cancer
> and smoked cannabis, which is almost the same except cannabinoids replace
> the nicotinoids, not causing cancer. Nicotine is carcinogenic,
> cannabinoids are anti-carcinogenic through cancer cell death.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
If you bothered to read the original report, rather than some pot loving 
sites interpretation :

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBK-4PT77JY-F&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F07%2F2007&_rdoc=22&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236713%232007%23996359998%23671438%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6713&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=31&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=98bb9016ea60e8a292fbaa9de6a20cc6

The actual banner headline is:

"Cannabinoid receptor agonists are mitochondrial inhibitors: A unified 
hypothesis of how cannabinoids modulate mitochondrial function and 
induce cell death"

and the conclusion:
"These data demonstrate that AEA, THC, and HU 210 are all able to cause 
changes in integrated mitochondrial function, directly, in the absence 
of cannabinoid receptors."

Ie Thc etc cause CELLS to self terminate, even if they HAVEN'T got 
cannabinoid receptors, we proved this by looking at cancer cells.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that as THC is pretty good at killing ALL 
cells, even if they haven't got the 'hooks' which normally receive THC.
Again, a GREAT reason to smoke it.

Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:06:49 -0700: B Sellers informed us:

> 	Er the tobacco smoke has other carcinogens as does cannabis smoke,
> but very few cannabis users are doing 20 to 40 joints per day as many
> tobacco smokers used to do commonly (a pack a day or 2 packs per day
> habit.)
> 	People also get lung cancer from other causes too you know.
> Some people are more susceptible to lung cancer because of inheritance.
> 
> 	No drug has worse effects on a free society than the drug of
> prohibition which is a societal cancer, imo.
> 
> 	later
> 	bliss

Yes, I agree Bobbie, I was just trying to simplify things :).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:09:24 +0100: Blah informed us:

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that as THC is pretty good at killing ALL
> cells, even if they haven't got the 'hooks' which normally receive THC.
> Again, a GREAT reason to smoke it.

Cancer cells *avoid* apoptosis, that is the problem. Chemo etc. is used to
induce apoptosis. All cells die, as explained below.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html

THC could be used in chemotherapy, but the US government would rather
people died than got stoned :).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:09:24 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that as THC is pretty good at killing ALL
>> cells, even if they haven't got the 'hooks' which normally receive THC.
>> Again, a GREAT reason to smoke it.
> 
> Cancer cells *avoid* apoptosis, that is the problem. Chemo etc. is used to
> induce apoptosis. All cells die, as explained below.
> 
> http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html
> 
> THC could be used in chemotherapy, but the US government would rather
> people died than got stoned :).
> 
	Actually synthetic THC is available for some patients for the
treatment of nausea.  It is a controlled drug and the high(?) is 
pretty unpleasant.  The US Government would rather that as few
people as possible get to use it.  European research has shown the
the drug to be largely ineffective for various reasons from poor 
mixing with the excipient (sic) i.e. some form of vegetable oil 
resulting in no medication in a capsule to poor absorption of the
chemicals thru the gut.

	later
	bliss

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:09:24 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that as THC is pretty good at killing ALL
>> cells, even if they haven't got the 'hooks' which normally receive THC.
>> Again, a GREAT reason to smoke it.
> 
> Cancer cells *avoid* apoptosis, that is the problem. Chemo etc. is used to
> induce apoptosis. All cells die, as explained below.
> 
> http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html
> 
> THC could be used in chemotherapy, but the US government would rather
> people died than got stoned :).
> 
Thats exactly the point - Chemo kills cells, thc kills cells.
Would you take Chemo illegally, if it got you high?

No - why?

Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:07:36 +0100: Blah informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:09:24 +0100: Blah informed us:
>> 
>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that as THC is pretty good at killing ALL
>>> cells, even if they haven't got the 'hooks' which normally receive
>>> THC. Again, a GREAT reason to smoke it.
>> 
>> Cancer cells *avoid* apoptosis, that is the problem. Chemo etc. is used
>> to induce apoptosis. All cells die, as explained below.
>> 
>> http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html
>> 
>> THC could be used in chemotherapy, but the US government would rather
>> people died than got stoned :).
>> 
> Thats exactly the point - Chemo kills cells, thc kills cells. Would you
> take Chemo illegally, if it got you high?

Cells kill themselves, cancerous cells do not.

> No - why?

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:07:36 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:09:24 +0100: Blah informed us:
>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that as THC is pretty good at killing ALL
>>>> cells, even if they haven't got the 'hooks' which normally receive
>>>> THC. Again, a GREAT reason to smoke it.
>>> Cancer cells *avoid* apoptosis, that is the problem. Chemo etc. is used
>>> to induce apoptosis. All cells die, as explained below.
>>>
>>> http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html
>>>
>>> THC could be used in chemotherapy, but the US government would rather
>>> people died than got stoned :).
>>>
>> Thats exactly the point - Chemo kills cells, thc kills cells. Would you
>> take Chemo illegally, if it got you high?
> 
> Cells kill themselves, cancerous cells do not.
> 
>> No - why?
> 
You miss the point - must be the thc clouding your judgement?
Would you take a chemo course intended for a cancer sufferer if it got 
you high? You are suggesting it and thc have equal value..

Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:12:10 +0100: Blah informed us:

> You miss the point - must be the thc clouding your judgement?

Ad-hominem. Well done.

> Would you take a chemo course intended for a cancer sufferer if it got
> you high? You are suggesting it and thc have equal value..

It would depend on the side effects of the chemo.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:12:10 +0100: Blah informed us:
> 
>> You miss the point - must be the thc clouding your judgement?
> 
> Ad-hominem. Well done.

Nope, just an accurate observation that you manage to avoid or miss the 
question:
"Thats exactly the point - Chemo kills cells, thc kills cells. Would you
take Chemo illegally, if it got you high?"

> 
>> Would you take a chemo course intended for a cancer sufferer if it got
>> you high? You are suggesting it and thc have equal value..
> 
> It would depend on the side effects of the chemo.
> 
Killing off cells needlessly not good enough?

Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:27:40 +0100: Blah informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> Noticed at Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:12:10 +0100: Blah informed us:
>> 
>>> You miss the point - must be the thc clouding your judgement?
>> 
>> Ad-hominem. Well done.
> 
> Nope, just an accurate observation that you manage to avoid or miss the
> question:

No, you said I was stoned and that is why I didn't answer your question. I
assumed it was a tongue-in-cheek straw man.

> "Thats exactly the point - Chemo kills cells, thc kills cells. Would you
> take Chemo illegally, if it got you high?"
> 
> 
>>> Would you take a chemo course intended for a cancer sufferer if it got
>>> you high? You are suggesting it and thc have equal value..
>> 
>> It would depend on the side effects of the chemo.
>> 
> Killing off cells needlessly not good enough?

What ratio of cells does chemo kill compared with to THC?

As I still have enough cells to type this after 40 years of cell killing,
I assume the excess THC-induced apoptosis is trivial.

I don't have cancer and there aren't any elephants in my garden, proving
that THC keeps elephants away. There are a few sad-looking roses, so
perhaps they've caught apoptosis from me when I smoked a spliff near them
on Friday night.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

5trfg6h7 wrote:
> And as a result, we know the effects of both
> arsenic and lead on human health. In fact, even
> the Romans knew that using lead in the water
> system had bad effects on human health.
  Recent work challenges that. Says the lead oxides, in a flowing
aquifer didnt produce enuf to have an effect. The problem was 'garum', a 
fish sauce that sat on every upscale Roman table like Ketchup. It was 
sold, and kept, in a lead bottle. That was the source of the lead found 
in aristocratic skeletons. The common people, who drank the same water, 
but didnt have garum, didnt have the problem.

But as to the thread, our culture has so many compounds from so many 
sources in such variable amounts, that trying to sort out the effect of 
any one of them, which includes cannibis, is a fool's errand.

"Day Brown"  wrote in message
news:4a702508$0$19579$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> 5trfg6h7 wrote:
> > And as a result, we know the effects of both
> > arsenic and lead on human health. In fact, even
> > the Romans knew that using lead in the water
> > system had bad effects on human health.

> Recent work challenges that. Says the lead oxides, in a flowing
> aquifer didnt produce enuf to have an effect. The problem was 'garum', a
> fish sauce that sat on every upscale Roman table like Ketchup. It was
> sold, and kept, in a lead bottle. That was the source of the lead found
> in aristocratic skeletons. The common people, who drank the same water,
> but didnt have garum, didnt have the problem.

Ok, but my original point was that ill effects from items
of longterm human use have a tendency to show up in
ancient literature. No such ill effects are known about hemp
or cannabis.

Example. From "JSTOR: Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World",

" Vitruvius knew about lead poisoning among lead miners. "

There is no equivalent description of the ill effects of cannabis
from ancient literature.

5trfg6h7 wrote:
> "Day Brown"  wrote in message
> news:4a702508$0$19579$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> 5trfg6h7 wrote:
>>> And as a result, we know the effects of both
>>> arsenic and lead on human health. In fact, even
>>> the Romans knew that using lead in the water
>>> system had bad effects on human health.
> 
>> Recent work challenges that. Says the lead oxides, in a flowing
>> aquifer didnt produce enuf to have an effect. The problem was 'garum', a
>> fish sauce that sat on every upscale Roman table like Ketchup. It was
>> sold, and kept, in a lead bottle. That was the source of the lead found
>> in aristocratic skeletons. The common people, who drank the same water,
>> but didnt have garum, didnt have the problem.
> 
> Ok, but my original point was that ill effects from items
> of longterm human use have a tendency to show up in
> ancient literature. No such ill effects are known about hemp
> or cannabis.
> 
> Example. From "JSTOR: Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World",
> 
> " Vitruvius knew about lead poisoning among lead miners. "
> 
> There is no equivalent description of the ill effects of cannabis
> from ancient literature.
I didnt see the original point. But agreed, that since hemp was used so 
widely, if there were a problem with it, we'd know by now.

The negative attitude twards hemp arises from sailing ships. There's an 
obscure ref about the Brits having to ship hemp seed to India because 
the local ganja was no good for rope. The smoking of hemp became 
associated with "inferior" cultures. The stuff the Europeans grew for 
their navies, (hence 'canvas' traces from 'cannabis') was so lacking in 
THC that recreational use disappeared. Only 'savages' smoked pot. Ergo, 
if you repress pot, you help to 'civilize' them.