cannabisnews.com: Patient Touts Anti-Cancer Properties of Marijuana





Patient Touts Anti-Cancer Properties of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on November 03, 2003 at 07:11:20 PT
By Lori Coolican, Edmonton Sun
Source: Edmonton Sun
A new scientific study is the "smoking gun" that proves the anti-pot crusade is a pack of lies and that medical marijuana works, says an American cancer patient claiming refugee status in Canada. Steve Kubby is celebrating the recent publication of a study in the world-renowned science journal Nature showing cannabis shrinks certain cancerous tumours in mice by shutting off the blood supply and destroying cancer cells.
"I think it so clearly connects the dots and shows the cancer-fighting properties of cannabis," he said yesterday. "I've just reached a point in my life when I want to stand on the rooftops and shout to everyone, 'You are being lied to - this stuff really works and here's the science to prove it.'" Kubby, 56, began experimental treatments last year at Edmonton's Cross Cancer Institute for a rare form of adrenal cancer. He lives in B.C. with his wife and two daughters. He has a federal exemption allowing him to grow and smoke pot but is still awaiting an Immigration and Refugee Board decision on his application for refugee status. Kubby argues he'll be persecuted for his pot use if forced to return to the U.S. The federal government's own doctor testified he'd likely die of a stroke or heart attack if deprived of medical pot for more than 24 to 48 hours, Kubby said. The board's decision was expected by the end of this week but has been delayed a few weeks by further submissions on both sides. Kubby is outraged that U.S. drug czar John Walters has been invited to address a Commons committee studying decriminalization. Walters has not indicated if he'll accept the invitation. "I understand that the Canadian government is getting an extreme amount of pressure from the extremist Bush administration, but they have to know that they are being lied to," Kubby said. The invitation is a "wonderful" chance for Canadians to uncover the American government's dishonesty about marijuana, said Richard Cowan, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a U.S.-based lobby group. Cowan now lives in Canada. "I think what they really need to do is have (Walters) go to Ottawa, get him on the record and then check the facts," he said. "This way they will see that they're being lied to." Note: Had experimental treatments at Cross Cancer Institute.Newshawk: Steve Kubby - http://americanmarijuana.org/Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB) Author: Lori Coolican, Edmonton SunPublished:  Monday, November 3, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Canoe Limited PartnershipContact: letters edm.sunpub.comWebsite: http://www.fyiedmonton.com/htdocs/edmsun.shtmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana Newshttp://www.marijuananews.com/The Drug War Refugees http://freedomtoexhale.com/smk.htm Medical Marijuana User Claims Persecution in US http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15907.shtmlRefugee Hearing for Pot Advocate http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15906.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by jose melendez on November 04, 2003 at 10:55:55 PT
Erred, indeed.
http://www.onlinepot.org/legal/article24.htmKenneth L. JENKS and Barbara J. Jenks, Appellants,   v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.No. 90-2462.District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.June 18, 1991.
 
 
 Defendants were convicted in the Circuit Court, Bay County, Clinton Foster, J., of cultivating cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia, and they appealed.  The District Court of Appeal, Ervin, J., held that: (1) statute defining cannabis as Schedule I substance did not preclude defense of medical necessity, and (2) defendants established medical necessity defense.Reversed.Nimmons, J., dissented.1.  Drugs and Narcotics 78 Statute defining cannabis as Schedule I substance did not preclude defense of medical necessity raised by defendant's charged with cultivating cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia, who allegedly used marijuana to treat nausea which they suffered in connection with their contraction of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).  West's F.S.A. ¤ 893.03(1)(d).JENKS v. STATE Fla. 677
 Cite as 582 So.2d 676 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1991)2.  Drugs and Narcotics 78 Defendants charged with cultivating cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia established medical necessity defense; medical expert and physician testified that no other drug or treatment was available that would effectively eliminate or diminish nausea suffered by defendants, who had contracted acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), and defendants established that if their nausea was not controlled, their lives were in danger.  West's F.S.A. ¤¤ 893.13, 893.147.3.  Drugs and Narcotics 78 Elements of medical necessity defense to use of controlled substance are: that defendant did not intentionally bring about circumstances which precipitated unlawful act; that defendant could not accomplish same objective using less offensive alternative available to defendant; and that evil sought to be avoided was more heinous than unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it.John F. Daniel, of Daniel & Komarek, Chartered, Panama City, for appellants.Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Gypsy Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.ON MOTION FOR REHEARINGERVIN, Judge.We substitute the following opinion for Jenks v. State, 16 F.L.W. D1070, 1991 WL 61786 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 16, 1991).Kenneth and Barbara Jenks appeal their convictions for cultivation of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to recognize their defense of medical necessity.  We agree and reverse.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by jose melendez on November 04, 2003 at 09:34:16 PT
neuroprotective
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14526067&dopt=Abstract
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on November 03, 2003 at 19:53:14 PT
A Question
I have a question. Aren't there any Initiatives concerning Cannabis on any state ballots tomorrow? If not this is the first year since before 96 that I can recall nothing happening. I am hoping that there is something happening and those responsible just kept it quiet so the drug czar didn't get into preaching against it. Does anyone know?PS: Paul You're Welcome!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by paulpeterson on November 03, 2003 at 12:55:09 PT
FoM
Thanks for the article citations. The really weird thing about cannabis is that in addition to encouraging apoptosis & discouraging angiogenesis (both to inhibit cancer growth), the cannabis also PROTECTS BRAIN CELLS from excitotoxins, purges glutamates, protects the myelin sheath and stops Amyloid Beta neurodegeneration (Alzheimer's). In short, it's good for what ails ya (including depression, anxiety, bipolar). One stop shopping. QED.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by E_Johnson on November 03, 2003 at 11:22:00 PT
Dr. Russo -- Nature vs. Science -- Nature wins
It looks like Science is going to end up a journal of disrepute, frozen out of the cannabinoid revolution by the extremist ideological predilections of its infamous publisher.(Science is the American journal, published by the AAAS, whose head is Alan Leshner, former head of NIDA.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on November 03, 2003 at 11:01:30 PT
The metaphor is so apt
Cannabinoids fighting cancerous cells in the body and cancerous ambitions in the soul...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by E_Johnson on November 03, 2003 at 11:00:14 PT
Dr. Russo: Cancer is cellular spiritual arrogance?
"Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth.
"The human race is a cancer on the world, by this definition.Our often bloody and vicious struggle for immortality... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by jose melendez on November 03, 2003 at 10:14:58 PT
Marinol is NOT THC.
In case Barthwell, McCaffrey or Walters were tempted to repeat the synthetic mantra . . .from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14586538&dopt=AbstractAnandamide inhibits the DOI-induced head-twitch response in mice.Egashira N, Mishima K, Uchida T, Hasebe N, Nagai H, Mizuki A, Iwasaki K, Ishii H, Nishimura R, Shoyama Y, Fujiwara M.Department of Neuropharmacology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Fukuoka University, 814-0180, Fukuoka, Japan.RATIONALE. Recently, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major psychoactive component of marijuana, and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists reportedly reduced the head-twitches induced by the 5-HT(2A/2C) receptor agonist 1-(2,5-dimethoxy 4-iodophenyl)-2-amino propane (DOI) in mice, which is mediated via the activation of 5-HT(2A) receptor. However, the effect of endogenous cannabinoid anandamide on the head-twitch response has not been studied. OBJECTIVES. In this study, we investigated the effect of anandamide on the DOI-induced head-twitch response in mice. METHODS. Five minutes after the injection of DOI (5 mg/kg IP), the number of head-twitches was counted for a 5-min period. THC or anandamide was injected IP 60 min or 10 min before the number of head-twitches was counted, respectively. RESULTS. THC and anandamide each reduced the DOI-induced head-twitch response. The inhibition of the DOI-induced head-twitch response by THC was reversed by SR141716A (N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-3-pyrazole-carboxamide), a CB(1) receptor antagonist, while the effect of anandamide was not blocked by SR141716A. Cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as aspirin and indomethacin reversed the inhibition of the DOI-induced head-twitch response by anandamide. On the other hand, COX inhibitors did not affect the inhibition of the DOI-induced head-twitch response by THC. CONCLUSIONS. Taken together, these findings suggest that the endocannabinoid anandamide may inhibit 5-HT(2A) receptor-mediated function via the arachidonic acid cascade, but not via a direct interaction with the CB(1) cannabinoid receptor, and that the mechanism of its action is clearly different from that of THC.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 03, 2003 at 10:13:39 PT
Paul Here's Two Articles!
 Pot Shrinks Tumors - Government Knew in '74: 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9211.shtmlPot Shrinks Tumors: Government Knew in 74: 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5972.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by jose melendez on November 03, 2003 at 10:08:01 PT
Who do you believe, pro or con?
from:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1148/a02.html%20Marijuana, whatever its value, is intoxicating, and it's not surprising that sincere people will report relief of their symptoms when they smoke it.  The important point is that there is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better.  It is the job of modern medicine to establish this distinction. Andrea Barthwellfrom:http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr031799.html"There is not a shred of scientific evidence that shows that smoked marijuana is useful or needed," Barry McCaffrey "Research has not demonstrated that smoked marijuana is safe and effective medicine. Legalizing smoked marijuana under the guise of medicine is scientifically irresponsible and contradictory to our high standards for approval of medications. We owe people with debilitating medical conditions the best that science has to offer - not the results of interest group lobbying and political compromise. "John P. Waltersfrom:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14570037&dopt=Abstract"Cannabinoids - the active components of Cannabis sativa and their derivatives - exert palliative effects in cancer patients by preventing nausea, vomiting and pain and by stimulating appetite."from:http://www.mpp.org/science_v_walters.htmlDrug Czar John Walters has repeatedly said that medical  marijuana makes no more sense than "medicinal crack."*  Here's what the real experts say:New England Journal of Medicine, 1997: "[A] federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane. ... The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule 1 drug (considered to be potentially addictive and with no current medical use) to that of a Schedule 2 drug (potentially addictive but with some accepted medical use) and regulate it accordingly" (editorial 1/30/1997, p. 366).Institute of Medicine, 1999: "Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana" (p. 159). While the IOM urged development of non-smoked marijuana-based drugs, it noted, "In the meantime there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief" (p. 7), adding, "Patients who are currently suffering from debilitating conditions unrelieved by legally available drugs, and who might find relief with smoked marijuana, will find little comfort in a promise of a better drug 10 years from now" (p. 178; all quotes and page numbers are from Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, 1999; this report was commissioned by Walters' predecessor, Gen. Barry McCaffrey).The Lancet Neurology, 2003: "Cannabinoids [marijuana's active components] inhibit pain in virtually every experimental pain paradigm. ... The clinical potential of the cannabinoids is large; some people suggest that cannabis could be the `aspirin of the 21st century.'" Discussing the synthetic THC pill dronabinol (Marinol), the journal noted, "Oral administration is probably the least satisfactory route for cannabis. ... The immediate future may lie in plant-based medicines" ("The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis," May 2003, Pp. 291-98).*See, for example, The Washington Post, 3/27/2003, p. B4.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by paulpeterson on November 03, 2003 at 08:48:49 PT
GREAT TO SEE CANCER IN THE NEWS
The US government knew in 1974 that pot shrank tumors in rats. The DEA had sponsored trials to prove pot hurt the immune system. The theory was, if those cancer rats died earlier when on pot, then the immune system was proven to be disrupted by pot use. Instead, the pot rats got cured or lived substantially longer than the straights. THEN THE DEA PULLED THE PLUG ON THE STUDY AND TRIED TO HUNT DOWN ALL THE REPORTS. When Guzman (Madrid, Spain) replicated the study 25 years later he was incensed to find the DEA had censored the much earlier study!I, personally, have tried to get this story out to the Chicago media (total blackout). Now five different forms of cancer have been proven treatable with cannabis: Breast, Lung, Brain, Blood & Skin cancers (in addition to adrenal cancer, it now would seem!).But don't listen to me, I'm only a suspended lawyer that thinks cannabis helped me with mood regulating issues (ADD, etc.) and tried to invoke the fine medical marijuana law Illinois has had for some 33 years (720 ILCS 550 sections 11 & 15). To all you other reefer warriors out there, keep the faith. The ball is finally moving in the right direction (and I'm not talking about that Rush limbo "right" either).I've noticed that numerous towns in Illinois are starting to decriminalize mere possession, per my suggestions to them over the past two years!Signing out, somewhere in the midwest.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on November 03, 2003 at 08:45:25 PT:
More Information
Steve is referring to an article I sent him. Try this link:http://80-www.nature.com.weblib.lib.umt.edu:2048/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nrc/journal/v3/n10/full/nrc1188_fs.html&filetype=pdfIf not, here is the abstract:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14570037&dopt=AbstractThe article was by Manuel Guzman in Nature Reviews-Cancer. Basically, Nature has come out with a variety of new journals where they actually review important concepts and explain them. They are much more user friendly than standard articles in the respective fields that are far too technical for the person who is not a specialist. This article examines the various ways in which THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells. Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. That process fails to work in tumors. THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias, melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die.But, that is not all. The other way that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly incredible, and elegant.The real scandal is that the National Institute on Drug Abuse knew of the cancer-fighting potential of THC in 1975, and virtually no work at all was done on it for twenty years. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on November 03, 2003 at 08:43:26 PT
A moment of truth
It sure is good to hear that someone is asking RC for his take on things. People should know what the wise men think. And Kubby is no representative of officialdom, so it is good that his voice is recognized as a singer for the best way instead of a chanter for the worst.I could not agree more that if Walters goes to testify it cannot help the prohibitionists cause. I could not be more happier than to know he would be on television. I would love to see his body guards and the government plane the taxpayers are forced to pay for him. 8. A Prayer for America by Dennis Kucinich, Studs Terkel has fallen from #7 yesterday to #8 today on the best selling books at Amazon.com- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/549066/ref=b_tn_be/104-5129051-3760713 DK has shown the strongest support for MMJ of anyone and my belief is he said he would issue an executive order to halt the DEA injustices. The paperback book sells for $9.56. Now surely DK must see like the majority of Americans that cannabis needs to be regulated like T&A and maybe the wind could answer if this is in his book.This link is the most important thing I could say today. It explains why the Washington Post sucks. We know the 5 big media companies seek the favors of government to be able to gobble up more outlets in different media's. Here is how the government controls the Washington Post- http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/031102_ConflictOfInterest.htm THE CONFLICT OF INTERE$T CORRUPTING by David PodvinThe Washington Post has devolved from being the vaunted citadel of American investigative journalism to little more than a gelding cheerleader for the current occupant of the White House. The moral collapse at the Post has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with greed.When the Washington Post Company announced its earnings on October 31, Dow Jones Newswires reported the following: “Revenue rose 10% to $706.1 million from $640.3 million, helped by 40% revenue growth at Kaplan division. Newspaper-publishing revenue grew 4.4% to $211.4 million, but revenue declined in both the television and magazine-publishing divisions.”Absent the huge increase in revenue from its Kaplan, Inc. educational materials subsidiary, the Washington Post Company would have been a money-losing organization, the kind of corporation where executives conduct layoffs prior to being fired themselves. The explosive growth at Kaplan was due to the largesse of George W. Bush, the politician whom the company’s flagship newspaper treats with tender loving care. It is the Bush program mandating the testing of schoolchildren across America – tests for which Kaplan supplies materials - that makes the federal government a lucrative source of revenue for the Post’s cash cow. 
$60 billion bribe for religious charitable groups
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment