Archive for August 18th, 2009

NORML

It was just yesterday that I was lamenting about the mainstream media’s failure to report on the anti-cancer properties of cannabis. And then along comes Reuters with this:

Cannabis chemicals may help fight prostate cancer
via Reuters News Wire

Chemicals in cannabis have been found to stop prostate cancer cells from growing in the laboratory, suggesting that cannabis-based medicines could one day help fight the disease, scientists said Wednesday.

After working initially with human cancer cell lines, Ines Diaz-Laviada and colleagues from the University of Alcala in Madrid also tested one compound on mice and discovered it produced a significant reduction in tumor growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Cancer, underlines the growing interest in the medical use of active chemicals called cannabinoids, which are found in marijuana.

Experts, however, stressed that the research was still exploratory and many more years of testing would be needed to work out how to apply the findings to the treatment of cancer in humans.

“This is interesting research which opens a new avenue to explore potential drug targets but it is at a very early stage,” said Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, which owns the journal.

“It absolutely isn’t the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis,” she added.

Well, well, well, leave it to the MSM to misrepresent the facts and miss the real story. First, the chemicals assessed in this study,R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015, are neither “cannabinoids” nor are they “chemicals in cannabis.” Rather, they are synthetic, selective CB2 receptor agonists. In short, they are chemicals created in a lab to mimic certain elements in marijuana, and to bind to specifically to those cannabinoid receptors that are not located in the brain. After all, we can’t possibly have the terminally ill feeling ‘better’, now can we?

Second, US federal researchers have known for some 35 yearsthat the naturally occurring chemicals in cannabis — not just synthesized agonists — can halt the proliferation of multiple types of cancer, including including brain cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and pancreatic cancer. We even know how.

Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents
via Nature Reviews Cancer (2003)

Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies. … Cannabinoids inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signaling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids are selective anti-tumor compounds, as they can kill tumor cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts.

Of course, the real question — conveniently ignored by Reuters and the rest of the MSM — is this: Why, after three decades and dozens of preclinical trials documenting cannabis’ potent anti-cancer abilities, are “many more years of testing” necessary?Last I checked, humans die en masse from cancer, not rats! Yet for some 35 years scientists have been content to replicate these  cancer-killer findings in animals and in petri dishes, all the while warning, “It absolutely isn’t the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis.”

Well why the hell not? Not only can cannabis alleviate cancer patients’ nausea and pain, elevate their mood, and increase their appetite, but also — as dozens of preclinical trials over the past three decades consistently demonstrate — marijuana may help to alleviate the very disease that’s ravaging their bodies. Of course, rather than put this theory to the test, investigators for more than three decades have been willing to let people with a terminal illness die while they piddle around with their petri dishes. And to date, not one reporter from the mainstream media has ever had the guts to ask them why.

Prison Planet

Washington Post

Undercover Baltimore police officer Dante Arthur was doing what he does well, arresting drug dealers, when he approached a group in January. What he didn’t know was that one of suspects knew from a previous arrest that Arthur was police. Arthur was shot twice in the face. In the gunfight that ensued, Arthur’s partner returned fire and shot one of the suspects, three of whom were later arrested.

In many ways, Dante Arthur was lucky. He lived. Nationwide, a police officer dies on duty nearly every other day. Too often a flag-draped casket is followed by miles of flashing red and blue lights. Even more officers are shot and wounded, too many fighting the war on drugs. The prohibition on drugs leads to unregulated, and often violent, public drug dealing. Perhaps counterintuitively, better police training and bigger guns are not the answer.

When it makes sense to deal drugs in public, a neighborhood becomes home to drug violence. For a low-level drug dealer, working the street means more money and fewer economic risks. If police come, and they will, some young kid will be left holding the bag while the dealer walks around the block. But if the dealer sells inside, one raid, by either police or robbers, can put him out of business for good. Only those virtually immune from arrests (much less imprisonment) — college students, the wealthy and those who never buy or sell from strangers — can deal indoors.

Six years ago one of us wrote a column on this page, “Victims of the War on Drugs.” It discussed violence, poor community relations, overly aggressive policing and riots. It failed to mention one important harm: the drug war’s clear and present danger toward men and women in blue.

Drug users generally aren’t violent. Most simply want to be left alone to enjoy their high. It’s the corner slinger who terrifies neighbors and invites rivals to attack. Public drug dealing creates an environment where disputes about money or respect are settled with guns.

In high-crime areas, police spend much of their time answering drug-related calls for service, clearing dealers off corners, responding to shootings and homicides, and making lots of drug-related arrests.

One of us (Franklin) was the commanding officer at the police academy when Arthur (as well as Moskos) graduated. We all learned similar lessons. Police officers are taught about the evils of the drug trade and given the knowledge and tools to inflict as much damage as possible upon the people who constitute the drug community. Policymakers tell us to fight this unwinnable war.

Only after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies — and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men — have we and other police officers begun to question the system.

Read The Full Story