Some mind-bending reading for anyone interested... specifically contrasting the National Cancer Institute (a US .gov website) thoughts on cannabis for cancer treatment ...
(excerpt) "Cannabis and ncanabinoids have been studied in the laboratory and the clinic for pain relief of, nausea and vomiting, anxiety, and loss of appetite. Cannabis and cannabinoids may have benefits in treating the symptoms of cancer or the side effects of cancer therapies. There is growing interest in treating children for symptoms such as nausea with Cannabis and cannabinoids, although studies are limited.
Two cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone) are drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy -related nausea and vomiting. Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory."
Patient version > https://www.cancer.g...nt/cannabis-pdq
Health Care Professional Version > https://www.cancer.g...hp/cannabis-pdq
And... then the DEA... The DEA ruled in August to keep cannabis schedule 1 drug, meaning no medical value, according to applicable rules and laws > https://www.dea.gov/.../hq081116.shtml
Although this short DEA notice and their stance might appear counter-intuitive to some, you can't really appreciate how messed up our laws are until you notice (at the bottom) how they are (still) against Industrial Hemp in the US (basically rope fiber)...
(excerpt) "... The 2014 Act did not remove industrial hemp from the list of controlled substances and, with certain limited exceptions, the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the CSA continue to apply to industrial hemp-related activities."
Nevertheless, the good stuff (the science part about cannabis) is in the detailed denial letters sent to the petitioners that's easy to miss the links to in the DEA letter. They are below and you have to skip past the first part where they say "No!" and "because of International treaties" until you get the detail about the "Scientific Evidence of Its Pharmacological Effects". A good read about the chemistry and research follows. Everyone may not agree, but, if nothing else, the government does go into exacting scientific detail on why it said no, backed up by the information they chose to look at and review. Along the way, they talk a lot about cannabis used on humans and animals. I though it was an interesting read and maybe it'll help get some conversation going here.
https://www.federalr...ralregister.gov
https://www.federalr...ralregister.gov