79 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

That may have been a little blunt.

No, blunts are fairly large usually.


[lol] [lol] [lol]

[Live Forever]

Study: One joint as bad as 5 cigarettes for your lungs:

http://news.yahoo.co...ain_cannabis_dc

[Liquidus]

Oh yeah, weed is terrible. Leads to disrespect of authority and hinders advancement in the corporate world.  Makes you fat too.

Generalizations are fun. Laziness and disrespect are character traits, not ones that magically come out after you smoke a joint. As for the fat part, well if you're ignorant enough to do it and just eat junk food, than sure, but there are A LOT of obese people who never smoked weed once. I know girls who have been smoking for years and they're still 5'2, 100 pounds soaking wet.

FYI: I know people who make $100,000 a year working as executives, never been in trouble with the law, model citizens, and they smoke pot 3-4 times a week.

Edited by G Snake, 01 August 2007 - 12:00 AM.

[Athanasios]

Study: One joint as bad as 5 cigarettes for your lungs:

http://news.yahoo.co...ain_cannabis_dc

Science blogs has a whole bunch of responses to this study and the lancet study on psychosis risk:

Rebuttal of 5 cig study:
http://scienceblogs....e_marijuana.php

lancet study article:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6917003.stm

Cannabis users are 40% more likely than non-users to suffer a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia

[doug123]

Study: One joint as bad as 5 cigarettes for your lungs:

http://news.yahoo.co...ain_cannabis_dc

First, I would like to openly disclose that I am not part of any lobbying agency; I am going to stick to the evidence as much as possible here and in my presentation I seek to appear unbiased, skeptical, and speculative as possible.

Here is the study cited in the article linked by "Live Forever:"

Here is the abstract:

Thorax. Published Online First: 31 July 2007. doi:10.1136/thx.2006.077081
Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Thoracic Society

THE EFFECTS OF CANNABIS ON PULMONARY STRUCTURE, FUNCTION AND SYMPTOMS
Sarah Aldington 1, Mathew Williams 1, Mike Nowitz 2, Mark Weatherall 3, Alison Pritchard 1, Amanda McNaughton 1, Geoffrey Robinson 1 and Richard Beasley 1*
1 Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, New Zealand
2 Pacific Radiology, Wellington, New Zealand
3 Wellington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, New Zealand

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: richard.beasley@mrinz.ac.nz.

Accepted 6 June 2007

Abstract

Background: Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug worldwide. Long term use of cannabis is known to cause chronic bronchitis and airflow obstruction, however the frequency of macroscopic emphysema, the dose-response relationship and the dose equivalence of cannabis with tobacco has not been determined.

Methods: A convenience sample of adults from the Greater Wellington Region was recruited into four smoking groups; cannabis only, tobacco only, combined cannabis and tobacco and non-smokers of either substance. Their respiratory status was assessed using high resolution CT scanning, pulmonary function tests and a respiratory and smoking questionnaire. Associations between respiratory status and cannabis use were examined by analysis of covariance and logistic regression.

Results: A total of 339 subjects were recruited into the four groups. A dose-response relationship was found between cannabis smoking and reduced FEV1/FVC and sGaw, and increased TLC. For measures of airflow obstruction, one cannabis joint had a similar effect to between 2.5 and 6 tobacco cigarettes. Cannabis smoking was associated with decreased lung density on HRCT scans. Macroscopic emphysema was detected in 1/75 (1.3%), 15/92 (16.3%), 17/91 (18.9%) and 0/81 subjects in the cannabis only, combined cannabis and tobacco, tobacco alone and non-smoking groups respectively.

Conclusions: Smoking cannabis was associated with a dose-related impairment of large airways function resulting in airflow obstruction and hyperinflation. In contrast, cannabis smoking was seldom associated with macroscopic emphysema. The 1:2.5 to 6 dose equivalence between cannabis joints and tobacco cigarettes for adverse effects on lung function is of major public health significance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords: CT scan, Cannabis, Lung function, Smoking, Tobacco

Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Thoracic Society

It seems among the subjects included in this study were tobacco smokers that already suffered from "the crippling lung disease emphysema." So the results of this study are not necessarily relevant (some might say not at all relevant!) for individuals who are not smokers suffering from "the crippling lung disease emphysema." Sample selection is essential to drawing clinically relevant conclusions.

LONDON (Reuters) - Smoking one cannabis joint is as harmful to a person's lungs as having up to five cigarettes, according to research published on Tuesday.


Those who smoked cannabis damaged both the lungs' small fine airways, used for transporting oxygen, and the large airways, which blocked air flow, the researchers said.

It meant cannabis smokers complained of wheezing, coughing, and chest tightness, the study by experts at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand found.

The researchers tested 339 people -- those who smoked only cannabis, those who smoked tobacco, those who smoked both and non-smokers.

The study found only those who smoked tobacco suffered from the crippling lung disease emphysema, but cannabis use stopped the lungs working properly.
...

According to this (and might I again classify this particular journalist as "clever?") Reuters journalist, the authors of this study said:

"The extent of this damage was directly related to the number of joints smoked, with higher consumption linked to greater incapacity," said the authors of the report published in the medical journal Thorax.

"The effect on the lungs of each joint was equivalent to smoking between 2.5 and five cigarettes in one go."

The British government is considering whether cannabis should be reclassified as a more serious drug because of the dangers associated with stronger strains.

In addition, it appears (and I checked the full text -- only in a cursory manner, however, so correct me if I am wrong, please) the researchers failed to mention whether they made the same mistake Berkeley researchers in the late 1970's made -- that is, use the leaves of the plant instead of the flowers (from my understanding of prescription grade marijuana, only the flowers are prescribed to be smoked). The leaves reportedly seem to appear to have much higher carcinogen content that the flowers.

It's quite ironic, in my opinion, to watch researchers publish research reporting on potential dangers of marijuana when in their sample group are tobacco smokers suffering from "the crippling lung disease emphysema" meanwhile the tobacco that caused the "the crippling lung disease emphysema" itself is legal! Especially when we learn who provided partial funding for the study (see below).

Here's some (in my opinion) of what appears to be solid peer-reviewed research on the dangers of marijuana -- not in groups necessarily tobacco smokers suffering from "the crippling lung disease emphysema"
To subject individuals suffering from emphysema to more smoke -- that's not very nice.

First, a study published in Archives of Internal Medicine, a publication of The American Medical Association; July 10, 2006:

Vol. 166 No. 13, July 10, 2006
Review Article

The Association Between Marijuana Smoking and Lung Cancer
A Systematic Review

Reena Mehra, MD, MS; Brent A. Moore, PhD; Kristina Crothers, MD; Jeanette Tetrault, MD; David A. Fiellin, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1359-1367.

Background  The association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer is unclear, and a systematic appraisal of this relationship has yet to be performed. Our objective was to assess the impact of marijuana smoking on the development of premalignant lung changes and lung cancer.

Methods  Studies assessing the impact of marijuana smoking on lung premalignant findings and lung cancer were selected from MEDLINE, PSYCHLIT, and EMBASE databases according to the following predefined criteria: English-language studies of persons 18 years or older identified from 1966 to the second week of October 2005 were included if they were research studies (ie, not letters, reviews, editorials, or limited case studies), involved persons who smoked marijuana, and examined premalignant or cancerous changes in the lung.

Results  Nineteen studies met selection criteria. Studies that examined lung cancer risk factors or premalignant changes in the lung found an association of marijuana smoking with increased tar exposure, alveolar macrophage tumoricidal dysfunction, increased oxidative stress, and bronchial mucosal histopathologic abnormalities compared with tobacco smokers or nonsmoking controls. Observational studies of subjects with marijuana exposure failed to demonstrate significant associations between marijuana smoking and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use. The primary methodologic deficiencies noted include selection bias, small sample size, limited generalizability, overall young participant age precluding sufficient lag time for lung cancer outcome identification, and lack of adjustment for tobacco smoking.

Conclusion  Given the prevalence of marijuana smoking and studies predominantly supporting biological plausibility of an association of marijuana smoking with lung cancer on the basis of molecular, cellular, and histopathologic findings, physicians should advise patients regarding potential adverse health outcomes until further rigorous studies are performed that permit definitive conclusions.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Mehra), and West Haven Veterans Administration Hospital, West Haven, Conn (Dr Tetrault); and Departments of Medicine (Drs Crothers, Tetrault, and Fiellin) and Psychiatry (Dr Moore), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

Alcohol. 2005 Apr;35(3):265-75.

Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk.

Hashibe M, Straif K, Tashkin DP, Morgenstern H, Greenland S, Zhang ZF.
International Agency for Research on Cancer, 69008 Lyon, France.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States and is considered by young adults to be the illicit drug with the least risk. On the other hand, marijuana smoke contains several of the same carcinogens and co-carcinogens as the tar from tobacco, raising concerns that smoking of marijuana may be a risk factor for tobacco-related cancers. We reviewed two cohort studies and 14 case-control studies with assessment of the association of marijuana use and cancer risk. In the cohort studies, increased risks of lung or colorectal cancer due to marijuana smoking were not observed, but increased risks of prostate and cervical cancers among non-tobacco smokers, as well as adult-onset glioma among tobacco and non-tobacco smokers, were observed. The 14 case-control studies included four studies on head and neck cancers, two studies on lung cancer, two studies on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, one study on anal cancer, one study on penile cancer, and four studies on childhood cancers with assessment of parental exposures. Zhang and colleagues reported that marijuana use may increase risk of head and neck cancers in a hospital-based case-control study in the United States, with dose-response relations for both frequency and duration of use. However, Rosenblatt and co-workers reported no association between oral cancer and marijuana use in a population-based case-control study. An eightfold increase in risk among marijuana users was observed in a lung cancer study in Tunisia. However, there was no assessment of the dose response, and marijuana may have been mixed with tobacco. Parental marijuana use during gestation was associated with increased risks of childhood leukemia, astrocytoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, but dose-response relations were not assessed. In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk. Several limitations of previous studies include possible underreporting where marijuana use is illegal, small sample sizes, and too few heavy marijuana users in the study sample. Recommendations for future studies are to (1) focus on tobacco-related cancer sites; (2) obtain detailed marijuana exposure assessment, including frequency, duration, and amount of personal use as well as mode of use (smoked in a cigarette, pipe, or bong; taken orally); (3) adjust for tobacco smoking and conduct analyses on nonusers of tobacco; and (4) conduct larger studies, meta-analyses, or pooled analyses to maximize statistical precision and investigate sources of differences in results. Despite the challenges, elucidation of the association between marijuana use and cancer risk is important in weighing the benefits and risks of medical marijuana use and to clarify the impact of marijuana use on public health.

PMID: 16054989 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

It appears the evidence in totally inconclusive and no conclusion can be drawn for users of medicinal marijuana, and it seems the evidence is mounting on it's clinical usefulness.

If the researchers of this study wish to draw conclusions for medicinal (i.e. individuals who have a legal prescription -- or not) users of the drug next time around I hope they might consider including a more clinically relevant sample.

And please tell us if you used what is prescribed to patients -- the flowers, or the highly carcinogenic leaves. That might make a huge difference, so please disclose such relevant factors -- if I missed this somewhere, my apologies -- again, I only took a cursory glance at the full text -- I honestly expected such data to be in the abstract.

The bottom line issue: at this time, the body of evidence to support the medical use of marijuana is overwhelming. Meanwhile tobacco -- the leading cause of death in the US (and probably the UK!) -- is legal. I am not necessarily saying either should be illegal either way (I am trying to keep out of these politic thingies) -- just pointing out the irony in using subjects that have a tobacco induced disease to try to make marijuana look bad -- what can that really tell you about marijuana?

Click here to read The Economist: The medical uses of cannabis

Vol. 291 No. 10, March 10, 2004    JAMA 
Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000
Ali H. Mokdad, PhD; James S. Marks, MD, MPH; Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc; Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2004;291:1238-1245.

Context  Modifiable behavioral risk factors are leading causes of mortality in the United States. Quantifying these will provide insight into the effects of recent trends and the implications of missed prevention opportunities.

Objectives  To identify and quantify the leading causes of mortality in the United States.

Design  Comprehensive MEDLINE search of English-language articles that identified epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies linking risk behaviors and mortality. The search was initially restricted to articles published during or after 1990, but we later included relevant articles published in 1980 to December 31, 2002. Prevalence and relative risk were identified during the literature search. We used 2000 mortality data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify the causes and number of deaths. The estimates of cause of death were computed by multiplying estimates of the cause-attributable fraction of preventable deaths with the total mortality data.

Main Outcome Measures  Actual causes of death.

Results  The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

Conclusions  These analyses show that smoking remains the leading cause of mortality. However, poor diet and physical inactivity may soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death. These findings, along with escalating health care costs and aging population, argue persuasively that the need to establish a more preventive orientation in the US health care and public health systems has become more urgent.

Author Affiliations: Division of Adult and Community Health (Dr Mokdad), Office of the Director (Drs Marks and Stroup), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and Office of the Director (Dr Gerberding), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.

I guess this time around, we should thank a particularly astute Reuters Journalist.

Oh, and here's an interesting factoid -- a pharmaceutical company helped provide some funds for this study. Implications?

Thoughts or comments?

Take care.

Attached Files

•  GSK.JPG   11.38KB   0 downloads

Edited by adam_kamil, 01 August 2007 - 12:54 AM.

[Live Forever]

Lol. I like how you put my sn in quotes, adam ("Live Forever") like it was some type of overused phrase or something, haha. I was not subscribing to the above study, I just saw it on Yahoo when I was checking the news earlier.

Thank you Adam, and thanks to Chris for the links. I haven't smoked since I was in college (a couple years now) but I know that it is a contentious issue, and I like to see the arguments on both sides of the issue whenever possible. [thumb]

[Liquidus]

Thank you Adam, and thanks to Chris for the links. I haven't smoked since I was in college (a couple years now) but I know that it is a contentious issue, and I like to see the arguments on both sides of the issue whenever possible.  [thumb]

Being a said 'college student', the implications are fairly obvious. Anyway, I think that people should just be allowed to choose for themselves. Pot-smokers shouldn't harrass non-pot smokers, and vice-versa, why there's sometimes a level of 'tension' is beyond me. I'll be the first to say that the majority of average 'people' probably cannot sustain functionality and productivity while using/smoking pot (which isn't even considered a drug in a lot of places). On the other hand, I truly do not see the harm in a herb like cannabis, if you bring in discussion of heavier drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth, well then the risks are obvious, but aside from 'maybe getting lung cancer in 50 years from being a pot-smoking college student', there's no other real 'bad' thing about marijuana, how people act/use it is completely subjective to that particular person.

[FunkOdyssey]

Oh, and here's an interesting factoid -- a pharmaceutical company helped provide some funds for this study. Implications?

Let me guess, they are coming out with a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist?

[Karomesis]

Let me guess, they are coming out with a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist?

[lol] as they say Funk....."follow the money".


I agree with Gsnake in many ways, people should essentially be left to their own devices so long as it doesn't bother anyone.

I openly admit I smoke the occasional high THC content strain of cannabis indica/sativa, but I do so through one of the least possible damaging methods currently available; controlled vaporization.
which eliminates many of the potentially harmful carcinogens found in the smoke.

it is also the reccomended method if ingestion for may medicinal cannabis patients who are oftentimes on their last leg so to speak with heavily compromised immune systems and a general lack of tolerance for adverse effects.

[Athanasios]

Study: One joint as bad as 5 cigarettes for your lungs:

http://news.yahoo.co...ain_cannabis_dc

Science blogs has a whole bunch of responses to this study and the lancet study on psychosis risk:

Rebuttal of 5 cig study:
http://scienceblogs....e_marijuana.php

lancet study article:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6917003.stm

Cannabis users are 40% more likely than non-users to suffer a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia

A rebuttal for psychosis study:
http://scienceblogs....is_cause_sc.php

Do you have any idea how much schizophrenics smoke? Tons. It's unbelievable. In fact, approximately 90% of schizophrenics smoke, and of schizophrenics who smoke, 90% of them started smoking before onset of their illness. Further, evidence of a dose response effect, 68% of schizophrenics are heavy smokers, compared to 11% of the smoking population.

Now this is kind of astounding. Why don't we say that cigarettes are putting people at risk for psychosis? Just because something follows an event, doesn't mean that event is the cause. The population is choosing the drug, the drug is not creating the population. If you were to do similar study with cigarettes, or booze, you'd find a similar correlation (RR=1.94), and dose response etc (although some articles have suggested a protective effect as well - albeit in older cohorts). Eliminating the cohort that already had the diagnosis would not eliminate the effect, because schizophrenics overwhelmingly start smoking, and other drugs, before the psychotic break that defines the diagnosis.

and references for his claims: http://apt.rcpsych.o...nt/full/6/5/327

[Liquidus]

I agree with Gsnake in many ways, people should essentially be left to their own devices so long as it doesn't bother anyone.

Unfortunately, and this holds true probably more so for religious people, but drugs are made as social deviants not because they're necessarily bad (no worse than alcohol, which is legal, and endorsed by Christianity), but because people 'believe' they're bad. My mom always makes threatening remarks about the implications of doing drugs, I ask her what implications she thinks drugs might lead to, and she doesn't even know, she just 'knows' that 'drugs are bad'. In other words, most people who are against something these days (drugs in this case), are against it not because they learned all the facts and then made a conscious, unbiased decision, but rather because years of social conditioning (parents who say drugs are bad, but don't explain why, etc...) have lead people to 'believe' drugs are bad without knowing any of the facts.

I call this effect the sheep effect (or, if you want to be a wikipedian, you could just read up aboutHerd Behavior). People will blindly follow what someone else tells them, without making a decision for themselves. I'm extremely happy that I've 'elevated' myself out of this group, and I've learned to think for myself.

[doug123]

CBCNews: Source



Marijuana-derived drug approved for cancer pain
Last Updated: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 | 5:39 PM ET
CBC News


Sativex is composed of THC, a key compound in marijuana, and cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in marijuana.
(CBC)

Sativex, a marijuana-derived mouth spray already used to treat pain in patients with multiple sclerosis, has been approved by Health Canada as a pain-reliever for patients with advanced cancer.

Sativex, made by the pharmaceutical firm Bayer Inc., is composed of THC, a key compound in marijuana, and cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in marijuana.

Health Canada announced Tuesday that Sativex can now be used by adult cancer patients who experience moderate to severe pain during the highest tolerated dose of strong opioid therapy for persistent pain.

The federal agency told CBCNews.ca that it had approved Sativex with conditions under its Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOC/c) policy, meaning further studies of the product are needed.

Products in this category have demonstrated promising benefits, are of high quality and possess an acceptable safety profile based on a benefit/risk assessment for approved use, according to Health Canada.

In 2005, Health Canada approved Sativex for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults with multiple sclerosis, also under the NOC/c policy.

Sativex is believed to act via cannabinoid receptors that are distributed throughout the central nervous system and in immune cells. These receptors are distributed throughout the pain pathways of the nervous system, and their activation is known to reduce pain.

"Cannabinoids have an important role in treating complex cancer pain, particularly neuropathic pain, and demonstrate a positive effect with current treatment options," Dr. Lawrence Librach, the director of the Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, said in a Health Canada release.

[xzzz]

Cannabinoids kill cancer and cure many other serious illnesses. Cannabis is one of the most helpful plants on earth for man. The war on marijuana is a bunch of FUD

[makoss]

Cannabinoids kill cancer and cure many other serious illnesses. Cannabis is one of the most helpful plants on earth for man. The war on marijuana is a bunch of FUD

Check out this video on Rick Simpson, a Canadian who claims to have cured his cancer and others using hemp oil extracted from cannabis plants. The video is an hour long, but it's worth watching. If this guy is right, cancer will be a simple cure. Looking forward to the members reaction

http://www.truveo.com/id/4163395789

Edited by makoss, 04 February 2009 - 01:57 AM.

[cmorera]

Cannabinoids kill cancer and cure many other serious illnesses. Cannabis is one of the most helpful plants on earth for man. The war on marijuana is a bunch of FUD

Check out this video on Rick Simpson, a Canadian who claims to have cured his cancer and others using hemp oil extracted from cannabis plants. The video is an hour long, but it's worth watching. If this guy is right, cancer will be a simple cure. Looking forward to the members reaction

http://www.truveo.com/id/4163395789

bump for Rick! I've done some research on him and this, and so far its not dis-proven to be false. Meaning, its possible his claims may be true. Obviously warrants further investigation with the positive anecdotal results reported.

[protoject]

I think there's too much propaganda surrounding marijuana. It's got selling points. I would love someone to bring up studies that show the negative side of it, not because I'm an asshole but because it's always good to have two sides to the story instead of sugar coating everything. It's as if everything gets blown out of proportion towards the positive side because the public is opening up their mind to it. Great, why don't we just smoke pot as our magic silver bullet to cure everything, as it seems the studies are all positive[/ sarcasm].. Need more objetivity before head turns to mush

[makoss]

Cannabinoids kill cancer and cure many other serious illnesses. Cannabis is one of the most helpful plants on earth for man. The war on marijuana is a bunch of FUD

Check out this video on Rick Simpson, a Canadian who claims to have cured his cancer and others using hemp oil extracted from cannabis plants. The video is an hour long, but it's worth watching. If this guy is right, cancer will be a simple cure. Looking forward to the members reaction

http://www.truveo.com/id/4163395789

bump for Rick! I've done some research on him and this, and so far its not dis-proven to be false. Meaning, its possible his claims may be true. Obviously warrants further investigation with the positive anecdotal results reported.

All it would take is for a pharmaceutical or biotech company to make a batch of this oil in the lab and do some random, double blind experiments with cancer patients. Until then, this oil will continue to be produced by the underground. I can't understand why this has not been investigated. A serious scientific look will clear the air on this issue.

[BadPlasmid]

Cannabinoids kill cancer and cure many other serious illnesses. Cannabis is one of the most helpful plants on earth for man. The war on marijuana is a bunch of FUD

Check out this video on Rick Simpson, a Canadian who claims to have cured his cancer and others using hemp oil extracted from cannabis plants. The video is an hour long, but it's worth watching. If this guy is right, cancer will be a simple cure. Looking forward to the members reaction

http://www.truveo.com/id/4163395789

bump for Rick! I've done some research on him and this, and so far its not dis-proven to be false. Meaning, its possible his claims may be true. Obviously warrants further investigation with the positive anecdotal results reported.

All it would take is for a pharmaceutical or biotech company to make a batch of this oil in the lab and do some random, double blind experiments with cancer patients. Until then, this oil will continue to be produced by the underground. I can't understand why this has not been investigated. A serious scientific look will clear the air on this issue.

My jaded response would be that they don't want to cure things - there isn't any money in it. They (pharma companies) want to treat chronic diseases, not cure them.

[rhakshasa]

I think you can have some hallucination on weed, you just gotta smoke a lot and not be tolerant. I'm pretty sure I've had them. When I started smoking my friend used a lot already so I got high very quickly I hallucinated numerous type. I would not say as strong as psicobilon or LSD but it was getting close frankly. Nowaday no way I'll hallucinate.

[Lgolos]

In regards to cancer:


Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression by downregulation of E2F1 in human glioblastoma multiforme cells.
http://marijuana.res...e/4/10/1467.htm

Inhibition of Glioma Growth in Vivo by Selective Activation of the CB2
Cannabinoid Receptor
http://cancerres.aac.../61/15/5784.pdf

Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells: A Novel Role of Cannabidiol in the Regulation of p22phox and Nox4 Expression
http://molpharm.aspe.../3/897.abstract

Down-regulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 in gliomas: a new marker of cannabinoid antitumoral activity
http://www.sciencedi...68c5897c8852db3




This one is a very comprehensive paper, although it's a lot to read.
http://jpet.aspetjou...157735.full.pdf