Smoking or eating marijuana is not a cure for cancer

[TheRightStuff]

There’s a modern myth that marijuana (cannabis sativa), in its natural form, is effective at both preventing and treating cancer. This myth has become ever more popular with the gradual approval of marijuana for recreational use in many places, most notably in some American states.
This misplaced belief most likely stems from the numerous studies that have shown that select chemicals found in marijuana have some anticancer properties. But it misses many important aspects of pharmacy that go beyond just the chemicals in the plant.
Marijuana, whether smoked or ingested, is not effective because dose and method of delivery are just as relevant to anticancer activity as the drug itself. And the damage caused to the body from long-term marijuana use may negate any perceived health benefits.
[h=2]Cannabinoids and cannabidiols[/h]Marijuana is the dried and crumbled leaves of the cannabis plant. The leaves can be rolled into cigarette- or cigar-like devices or smoked in a pipe. Alternatively, it can be mixed into food and baked; popular food stuffs include brownies and biscuits or cookies.

The structures of the two chemicals found in marijuana which have potential as anticancer drugs.Created by authorLike tobacco leaves, marijuana contains many hundreds of different chemicals. Two chemicals from the cannabinoid family are of particular interest as anticancer drugs, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the chemical that gives marijuana its psychoactive effect, and the related compoundcannabidiol.
In bench top, petri dish-like experiments, these chemicals have been shown to kill or slow the growth of different cancers, including in one study, colorectal tumours and leukaemia. Some studies have also shown effectiveness in animals models, but all these used the pure chemicals as injectable solutions.
Unfortunately, anticancer activity in the laboratory doesn’t always equal similar activity in humans. More than 80% of drugs fail human cancer clinical trials even though they have been found to be curative in animals.
In addition, if marijuana itself was able to cure cancer in humans then there should be a lower incidence of cancer in groups of long-terms users. Instead, it appears that marijuana use may increase your likelihood of cancer. While this hasn’t been firmly established yet, regular marijuana use definitely does not lower your risk of cancer.
[h=2]Importance of the dosage form[/h]Even if the cannabinoids are found to be anticancer active in humans, the means by which the drugs area administered is just as important as the compounds themselves.

Human lungs are not designed to absorb chemicals from the air. Blind Nomad/Flickr, CC BY-SAPharmacists call different formulations of drugs dosage forms. Examples of dosage forms include tablets and capsules, creams and lotions, and solutions for injection. Some drugs work equally well when administered in different dosage forms, but some drugs, especially cancer drugs, are only effective when injected directly into the blood stream.
Human lungs are not designed to absorb chemicals from the air and while 9-THC is sufficiently absorbed from smoke to give its psychotropic effects, the inhaled dose may not be high enough to be effective against cancer.
Alternatively, when ingested, the anticancer chemicals will be rapidly absorbed from the stomach but may be transported to other areas of the body (like the brain) rather than to the sites of cancer. The active chemicals may also be destroyed by the liver through metabolism before they attain a high enough dose in the blood stream.
More problematic is that how and where the marijuana is grown, and how it is prepared, can affect significantly the amount of active chemicals found the plant. Variability in the concentration of active chemical in many plant-based complementary medicines remains a huge issue in their application.
[h=2]Dangers of long-term marijuana use[/h]Just because a product is natural, or organic, does not mean it is completely safe. As described earlier, marijuana use may increase the chance of cancer, but it can also induce the same chronic effects that come from smoking any substance.

Just because a product is natural, or organic, does not mean it is completely safe. North Cascades National Park Ranger/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SALong-term marijuana use has been shown to destroy cilia (the hairs in the respiratory tract) and lower the natural antimicrobial protection that we have in the lungs. Marijuana use can only damage health, not improve it.
In the future, the active chemicals from marijuana may enter mainstream medicine for the treatment of cancer. If so, they will be used in high-quality pharmaceutical preparations at the correct dose and in the most effective formulation.
So by all means use marijuana for recreational reasons (if that’s what you are into and it’s legal in your area) or for medically-prescribed pain relief, but don’t use it for the purpose of preventing or curing cancer.

http://theconversation.com/smoking-or-eating-marijuana-is-not-a-cure-for-cancer-24224

 

[slimvictor]

Human lungs are not designed to absorb chemicals from the air.

Bwua-ha-ha!!!
I needed a good laugh today.

Marijuana use can only damage health, not improve it.

This is so ignorant that it is astounding.

 

[slimvictor]

There’s a modern myth that marijuana (cannabis sativa), in its natural form, is effective at both preventing and treating cancer. This myth has become ever more popular with the gradual approval of marijuana for recreational use in many places, most notably in some American states.
This misplaced belief most likely stems from the numerous studies that have shown that select chemicals found in marijuana have some anticancer properties.

Right, the plethora of studies showing that cannabis and its components are strongly anti-cancer might have something to do with that "myth".

 

[TheRightStuff]

Right, the plethora of studies showing that cannabis and its components are strongly anti-cancer might have something to do with that "myth".

IKR, what would a pharmaceutical chemist know about how the body absorbs a drug and the way that may or may not act on various forms of cancer 8)

Did you not read the bit where he clearly links to a number of those studies? Or the bit where he explains WHY those anti-cancer properties seen in a lab might not translate to anticancer activity in the human body?

Unfortunately, anticancer activity in the laboratory doesn’t always equal similar activity in humans. More than 80% of drugs fail human cancer clinical trials even though they have been found to be curative in animals. In addition, if marijuana itself was able to cure cancer in humans then there should be a lower incidence of cancer in groups of long-terms users. Instead, it appears that marijuana use may increase your likelihood of cancer. While this hasn’t been firmly established yet, regular marijuana use definitely does not lower your risk of cancer.

I'm all for medical marijuana in the right context but personally I think it is quite dangerous for pro-drug advocates to make claims about curing cancer that don't stack up in the real world. The human body is not a petri-dish and marijuana advocates shouldn't be giving cancer patients false hopes.

And, like the author points out, that doesn't take away from the usefulness of marijuana in treating some of the symptoms cancer patients suffer. It just means it is unlikely to actually cure them.

 

[TheRightStuff]

Would someone mind editing out all the annoying formatting in the OP? I don't have permissions to and it's really hard to read in its current form.

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

I believe this. I don't believe if one only took marijuana orally that it would increase their likelihood of cancer. There are a lot of ignorant points made though, as slimvictor pointed out in his first post.
As much as I hate marijuana prohibitionists spouting out false information, I likewise hate marijuana activists spouting the whole "marijuana cures cancer/cures everything" bullshit. It should be blatantly obvious that lab trials shown to potentially kill cancer cells =/= a cure.
If we are ever to properly move forward with marijuana reform we need to use known facts, not some exaggerated theory such as this that can be easily proven to be just that, only a theory with little evidence to back it up.
However marijuana cancer research looks like it has a potentially promising future in using cannabinoids to develop better more effective ways to fight various forms of cancer, although it is all in the very early stages of research still and has a long way to go

 

[TheRightStuff]

I don't believe if one only took marijuana orally that it would increase their likelihood of cancer.

He doesn't argue that at all. He's clearly talking about (heavy) smoking when making the link (which he acknowledges is far from proven) between chronic marijuana use and cancer.

As much as I hate marijuana prohibitionists spouting out false information, I likewise hate marijuana activists spouting the whole "marijuana cures cancer/cures everything" bullshit. It should be blatantly obvious that lab trials shown to potentially kill cancer cells =/= a cure.
If we are ever to properly move forward with marijuana reform we need to use known facts, not some exaggerated theory such as this that can be easily proven to be just that, only a theory with little evidence to back it up.
However marijuana cancer research looks like it has a potentially promising future in using cannabinoids to develop better more effective ways to fight various forms of cancer, although it is all in the very early stages of research still and has a long way to go

This I agree with wholeheartedly. Basically my line of reasoning when I decided to share the article here.

 

[bukweat]

As pot is schedule 1 and lab trials few and far between what is not known would fill several encyclopedias.

 

[TheRightStuff]

I thought I better record this as they catch up it will no doubt get edited.

Which bit of that do you feel conflicts with the article in the OP?

 

[One Thousand Words]

I know plenty of heavy weed smokers who have died of cancer. Bob Marley is a very famous example of vegetarian, clean living, otherwise fit young man who died of cancer. Cannabis may contain ingredients that when dropped into a Petri dish kill cancer cells but fighting cancer as a disease takes more than this. Cancers are incideous warriors that are cunning and extremely difficult to eliminate. Modern cancer treatments are more than simply swallowing a drug and hoping it finds it's way to the tumour.

Current research is directed towards delivery systems that specifically target cells with the aim of decreasing collateral damage to healthy cells. Cannabis may well one day provide us with some building blocks to future cancer treatments but it is a very disappointing stretch to suggest that a ready made cure exists in a spliff or brownie.

 

[TheRightStuff]

im going to try and pick trough all this information to see if I can shed some light on whats fact and fiction when I get a chance, but this is easy enough



Not for a very long time in America and other places but this is solely due laws intentionally left unchanged to prohibit the research from being undertaken and not because people weren't excited and willing to conduct the research, but they have been prevented for years from pursuing this because the plant was originally classified as having no medicinal value. After using this plant at times for many years and being a caregiver and grower to many ill people who clearly with out a doubt received medicinal benefits from it use.

The article in the OP doesn't argue that cannabis has no medicinal benefit. He at the very least mentions pain-relief. I would agree if you were to argue that he could have gone into more detail about some of the other medicinal benefits, such as that you link to below.

But this one has already started and please dont chime in and say that they are using this spray and not canibus.. cause this spray really seems to be the entire active load of the cannabis sativa IS plant.. Fact Sheet - SATIVEX

Well, he is quite specific about SMOKING and EATING and makes the point that cancer treatments are very much dose and ROA dependent. Also, Sativex is used for reducing symptoms of MS, not curing cancer - which is the claim that the article seeks to refute. Like I said above, he could have been given more credit to cannabis therapies for conditions other than pain relief, such as its use in reducing MS symptoms or for reducing the symptoms of chemotherapy etc. But none of that speaks to the central thrust of his article, the claims that smoking and/or eating cannabis is going to cure people of cancer are unfounded and based on lab results in petri dishes that overwhelmingly do not translate into how things work in the human body.

Cannabis Treatment For Brain Cancer Begins First Human Trials

returning to this post in a bit..

Well, that will be great if Sativex does prove effective in treating some aggressive forms of tumours but - again - that doesn't detract from his central argument. Indeed, he makes the point that how a drug interacts with a cancer very much depends of ROA. It might very well be that certain doses of Sativex, administered in a particular way will indeed be effective for treating certain types of cancer. That doesn't conflict with anything I read in the OP.

 

[neversickanymore]

The article in the OP doesn't argue that cannabis has no medicinal benefit. He at the very least mentions pain-relief. I would agree if you were to argue that he could have gone into more detail about some of the other medicinal benefits, such as that you link to below.

sorry if this was confusing but it was actually in regards to the information provided by the NCI

Well, that will be great if Sativex does prove effective in treating some aggressive forms of tumours but - again - that doesn't detract from his central argument. Indeed, he makes the point that how a drug interacts with a cancer very much depends of ROA. It might very well be that certain doses of Sativex, administered in a particular way will indeed be effective for treating certain types of cancer. That doesn't conflict with anything I read in the OP.

this was also in regard to that info.. I think I went off a little when i saw that and made this thread temp confusing.. sorry again.

Which bit of that do you feel conflicts with the article in the OP?

I'm not sure if any of it does. I haven't had a chance to thoroughly look over the article you posted but as I was and as I was looking for some information to dispute a point in the original article. When I scanned this information from a source that claims to be a major pillar in the fight against cancer I was surprised to find some things that were outdated, felt it missed addressing some key symptoms that the medicinal use of cannabis accomplishes when it is used to treat the effects of chemo and radiation, and had some other issues to address. So I wanted to get a record of where they were as of this date. I also feal that this may become relevant to this thread. I will shrink it up so it doesn't hamper the thread though.

a few things to consider about the article would be..

"There’s a modern myth that marijuana (cannabis sativa), in its natural form, is effective at both preventing and treating cancer.

Do we have any conclusive evidence that it is not at this point.. not saying to use a medicine on the grounds it hasn't been proven not to work, or given a chance tyo be proven to work, just saying im not sure as this seems to read more that is strickly untrue that it works to do either of these things, when it maybe more acurate to say it hasn't been shown to work or mot work in this form and taken in traditonal ways. This being said I think if I were suffering from cancer I would make the choice to incluse it in my treatment on the grounds of its possible potential combined with the fact that it has been used in conjunction with traditional treatments of cancer and also can provide levels of relief from symptoms often experienced from current cancer treatments.

Marijuana, whether smoked or ingested, is not effective because dose and method of delivery are just as relevant to anticancer activity as the drug itself.

seems again to be claiming it does not work on the fact that it has never been studied with this route of dosage. It should read that it has not been studied in this manor. Im not sure if it has or not but buy the way its stated it seems that he is claiming it doesn't work because it has not been studied yet?

Don't we need scientific evidence it does not work to claim that it doesnt work?

If you heat the plant, you will decarboxylate THC-acid and you will get high, you’ll get you 10 mg. If you don’t heat it, you can go up to five or six hundred milligrams and use it as a dietary cannabis and push it up to the anti-oxidant and neuro-protective levels which come into play at hundreds of milligrams – Dr William Courtney

http://www.collective-evolution.com...es-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-brain-cancer/

We may meed to look at whether the therapeutic level can be reached orally to see who is incorrect here.

The structures of the two chemicals found in marijuana which have potential as anticancer drugs

This is kinda a bold statement as how does he know that these are the only two potential chemicals.

I just wonder if nearly enough research has been done to say this with any sort of certainty. Considering we are stil trying to figure out the exact function of canabaniods in the body as far

This info may be outdated..

The existence of additional cannabinoid receptors has long been suspected, due to the actions of compounds such as abnormal cannabidiol that produce cannabinoid-like effects on blood pressure and inflammation, yet do not activate either CB1 or CB2.[14][15] Recent research strongly supports the hypothesis that the N-arachidonoyl glycine (NAGly) receptor GPR18 is the molecular identity of the abnormal cannabidiol receptor and additionally suggests that NAGly, the endogenous lipid metabolite of anandamide (also known as arachidonoylethanolamide or AEA), initiates directed microglial migration in the CNS through activation of GPR18.[16] Other molecular biology studies have suggested that the orphan receptor GPR55 should in fact be characterised as a cannabinoid receptor, on the basis of sequence homology at the binding site. Subsequent studies showed that GPR55 does indeed respond to cannabinoid ligands.[9][17] This profile as a distinct non-CB1/CB2 receptor that responds to a variety of both endogenous and exogenous cannabinoid ligands, has led some groups to suggest GPR55 should be categorized as the CB3 receptor, and this re-classification may follow in time.[18] However this is complicated by the fact that another possible cannabinoid receptor has been discovered in the hippocampus, although its gene has not yet been cloned,[19] suggesting that there may be at least two more cannabinoid receptors to be discovered, in addition to the two that are already known. GPR119 has been suggested as a fifth possible cannabinoid receptor.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
but I was just reading about on of the possible negative effects of heavy cannabis use being Cannabinoid hyperemesis and since the symtoms and unusaul treatment of nausua with a hot shower seem to back up the claim that cnabaniods could be involved in both temperature regualtion and nausia and hunger in regards tto the hypotalmus. This also seems to fit with known effects of introduced cannabinoids affecting nausea and hunger levels.


if I draw on some of the interesting effect certain strains seemed to have on specific ailments.. while many other widely differing strains did not do nearly as well I wonder if we are even close to up to speed on how these work and what positive or potentially negative effects the different chemicals will have. Also even those teo chemical have been shown to adres this desired affects of this way of treating cancer it does not mean there are yet undiscovered potential out there for the others.

An argument can be made about this by looking at the somewhat less than exspected successes of the pot pill that has been available for awhile now. Has it been shown to work as well as the real thing?

Just because a product is natural, or organic, does not mean it is completely safe. As described earlier, marijuana use may increase the chance of cancer, but it can also induce the same chronic effects that come from smoking any substance. Just because a product is natural, or organic, does not mean it is completely safe

this is absoutley true as far as organic not gurenteing absolutely safe. Kinda funny he is getting down on a potential for grass to induce cancer as I belive the traditional approaches of chemo and radiation have been shown with out a doubt to increase on liekly hood of developing further cancers and have the real potential to cause cancer as well.

no compound or chemical is absolutely safe in all circumstances.. But with everything else I like to put the reality of something into play.. is marijuana harmless.. no but neither is anything else.. this is earth and just about everything marms us or has the potential to harm us.. so I just bow out of th completely harmless nonsense and look at it as on e of the least harmful and deadly drugs and medicines available anywhere right now.

So by all means use marijuana for recreational reasons (if that’s what you are into and it’s legal in your area) or for medically-prescribed pain relief, but don’t use it for the purpose of preventing or curing cancer.

I will keep this mans recommendations and discouragements contained in this particular sentence in a soon to be filled and forgotten forever place. Im a strong inteligent person and can think for myself. And If I end up with cancer before the trials have shown whats up I will make my descion based on the best evidence I can muster at that time. Until then I think that old trusty rule of common sense and reasonable to occasional use in a vaporiser so any precious cillia I have left after foolishly smoking tobacco remained intact. Im just glad that the studies are finally going through.. but as i feal grass consumed in a proper fashion is safer or as safe as many over the counter drugs for which it provides a good alternative I will likely use it instead of those if needed.

edit:
Overall I thought it was a pretty good article where allot of good points were made and the information in general was full of acuarate information. They did however seem to present some statements in a way that could be looked at as not accurate.. but over all I learned a a bit about a few things.

 

[f33lg00d]

Love this style of propaganda
1. Make unbacked claims
2. Call apposing scientific facts "myths"

 

[TheRightStuff]

^^ Propaganda? How so? He says quite openly that he has no problem with recreational use, or use for other medical purposes, he only has a problem with people making false and misleading claims about cancer treatment. He's hardly a puritan or a prohibitionist.

And how can you call any of the claims "unbacked" when they are all sourced using hyperlinks to original research? The author doesn't deny the fact that cannabinoids have anticancer properties - he is refuting the tendency for some people to take those facts and extend them to saying that smoking and/or eating cannabis will cure cancers.

@neversickanymore - Ahh, I see where you are coming from now. Yes, I was confused about what you were referring to, although in retrospect it should have been clear, I just wasn't reading what you'd quoted properly

Do we have any conclusive evidence that it is not at this point.. not saying to use a medicine on the grounds it hasn't been proven not to work, or given a chance tyo be proven to work, just saying im not sure as this seems to read more that is strickly untrue that it works to do either of these things, when it maybe more acurate to say it hasn't been shown to work or mot work in this form and taken in traditonal ways. This being said I think if I were suffering from cancer I would make the choice to incluse it in my treatment on the grounds of its possible potential combined with the fact that it has been used in conjunction with traditional treatments of cancer and also can provide levels of relief from symptoms often experienced from current cancer treatments.

Well, to be pedantic you can't prove a negative, you'd have to prove that it is effective to have any worth. That being said, he makes a very valid point that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between recreational cannabis use and a reduction in cancers. If the normal, natural use of cannabis DID cure cancer then you'd expect to see some kind of correlation among population groups that use it in that way and - as far as we can tell from the evidence he's presented - that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[slimvictor]

RightStuff: Contrary to what you tentatively assumed earlier, I deeply appreciate contrary views and the discussion they can lead to. So, here are some interesting links:

http://www.medicaljane.com/2013/11/13/cannabis-based-brain-cancer-treatment-begins-human-trials/
http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-might-kill-cancer-1289

Here is a quote from Numbers:

THC and CBD aren't just antineoplastics (anti-cancer), they're also antioxidants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20965/

That means they bind free radicals and prevent them from covalently bonding with DNA, thereby preventing the genetic mutations that lead to cancer from taking place.

And, weed smokers actually have a (slightly) lower incidence of lung cancer than non-smokers. This is despite the fact that smoking anything is terrible for the lungs. Here is my source, and check out this:

Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013 Jun;10(3):239-47. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212-127FR.

Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung.

Tashkin DP.

1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, David Geffen School of
Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to
the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of
symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other
hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant
abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or
longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest
increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no
clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established.
Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens,
findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not
suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway
cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible
carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking
leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function
of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated
risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated
marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and
bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from
epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence
implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of
marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

Finally, we dealt with many related issues in this thread, so if you want to continue this discussion, it is worth having a look there.

Peace.

 

[neversickanymore]

we should add this link in as it pertains to the discussion..

British Study: Cannabinoids May Combine To Effectively Treat Cancer

 

[CLICKHEREx]

Putting to the side whether cannabis has anti cancer properties for the time being, the fact that it stimulates appetite and reduces nausea makes it an important complementary treatment to chemotherapy.

If people don't eat sufficient quantities of food, regardless of the nutritional value of what they consume, their health will be adversely impacted.

The best approach is to eat enough of a healthy diet, optimise vitamin D levels, (Google: "Dr. Mercola; vitamin D; cancer" for articles, and I distinctly remember his website stating that people with sarcoidosis, or tuberculosis, require close management of their vitamin D levels) and consider juicing fresh vegetables every day.

Over the years, I have compiled a list of both complementary, and alternative treatments for cancer, including alkalysing the blood, under medical supervision*, using sodium bicarbonate, (cancer cells can't cope with alkaline conditions, but humans can, to some extent at least*) and the old fashioned "essiac" herbal treatment.

If I had cancer, I'd still be using conventional treatments, such as chemotherapy, or radiation, but would adopt juicing, the revised vitamin D levels for that particular type of cancer, and if the chemo / radiation appeared ineffective, would consider using the alternative treatments, such as sodium bicarbonate solution, used intravenously, under close medical supervision.

Anyone wanting my post on it can message me via drugs-forum, or shaman-australis, where I have the same screen name as here.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

In the 1974 study in Spain they injected medical grade THC, by itself, directly into rat tumors. They found a 36% average reduction in tumor size. Some were completely removed while others were not effected. They fact that weed smokers had a slightly reduced lung cancer rate compared to non-smokers in the study that actually controlled for those combining it with tobacco means this article is double bullshit.

 

[TheRightStuff]

In the 1974 study in Spain they injected medical grade THC, by itself, directly into rat tumors. They found a 36% average reduction in tumor size. Some were completely removed while others were not effected.

How does that conflict with the main argument of the OP?

They fact that weed smokers had a slightly reduced lung cancer rate compared to non-smokers in the study that actually controlled for those combining it with tobacco means this article is double bullshit.

Again, the author made no claims about lung cancer - this is the study he referred to and it didn't find a link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer, however it DID find an increased risk of prostate, cervical, head and neck cancers in non-tobacco using marijuana smokers:

http://www.alcoholjournal.org/article/S0741-8329(05)00112-6/abstract

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

^ Maybe Tl/dr? I may edit later.

The article is still bullshit and I have seen studies saying cannabis treats some of those cancers as well. If someone can post those that would be great.