Sunday, May 4, 2014

Misconception about Pot

Not to flog a dead horse but I do want to address the blind obsessiveness that is driving the legalization of pot campaign which I see as cult like. I've said a million times before that there is a huge difference between pot and crack or crystal meth. A huge difference. So much of a difference that I agree it is insane to implement mandatory minimum sentences for pot when we need to deal with crack dealers not uses and violent crime.

Throwing everyone in jail for smoking pot would be a huge waste of tax dollars. Having said that I think it is really important we be completely honest and clear up some of the obsessive misconceptions about pot that many actually believe to be true despite the obvious facts staring them in the face and the huge dissinformation campaign on the internet.

Pot does not cure cancer. Chemotherapy cures cancer. Pot eases the side effects of chemotherapy. You can't get any more clear then that. When someone writes in and calls me an idiot for claiming chemotherapy cures cancer not pot I am forced to ask what else are you smoking? Years ago, if you had Hodgkin's disease, you likely died from it. Now it is totally treatable. Now many forms of cancer are successfully treated. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment are horrible things to go through but the success rate has been scientifically recorded. To say those documented cases are false is absurd. To abandon those facts and claim that pot not chemotherapy cures cancer is not only false but cult like.

Everyone knows that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. It causes lung cancer. The warnings on the packages keep getting larger and larger and society today all know about the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. The concerns about second hand smoke has resulted in banning smoking from most public places including airplanes. Second hand smoke is irritating and unhealthy. So what makes you think that smoking pot is somehow magically different than smoking cigarettes?

I knew a guy just out of high school who was a long distance runner and liked pot. He knew smoking was bad for you so he ate it in cookies or hash brownies. The truth is, pot smoke is unfiltered and causes lung cancer even more so than smoking regular filtered cigarettes.

We need to be honest about the facts. When I see people obsessively denying the facts I'm forced to step back and reexamine their movement. Recently the Vancouver Province ran an article about pot legalization in Colorado. The picture that went with the article was a large group of demonstrators celebrating their victory and smoking pot in public. They all looked like a bunch of spoilt brat stoners. I don't go anywhere near the Vancouver Arts Gallery on 420. It's is completely out of hand. They're just a bunch of spoilt brats empowered by the mob mentality. To each their own but that is not my thing. Just so we're clear on that.

There are also concerns about ingesting pot in food. The guys at work are famous for bringing pot cookies to special events. They were all joking about one older guy who ate several of these powerful cookies and sat in his van for hours because he was totally f*cked up. I mentioned it to another old timer and he asked how many the guy ate. He was shocked and said you've only supposed to eat half of one. Well someone should have told him. Sitting in your van and getting f*cked up for hours is not my idea of a good time. Evidently they are having the same problem of controlling doses in Colorado when people ingest pot in food.

In fact, the cult like obsessiveness to legalize pot claiming it will solve all your problems and even cure cancer reminds me of the book Brave New World and how the drug Soma was used to tranquilize the masses into obeying the World State. Personally I think pot is over rated.

Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke.

Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke.

Part Two: Crack Cures Cancer


  1. Contolled doses. Better regulated pot with higher standards all arguments for legalization. Getting the profits out of the hands of organized crime also good. Douche bags at 420 events will have to be douche bags elsewhere. And yes people believe all sorts of dumb shit like gluten is the reason for cancer and big placebo will cure xyz.

    1. Getting the profits out of organized crime? Look at how many legal medicinal grow ops in Kelowna the Hells Angels ran that were busted last year. Legalizing it will not stop organized crime it will make them unstoppable. Legalizing it will not get rid of the 420 losers it will trigger the Zombie Apocalypse of 420 losers everywhere.

  2. I'm gonna go there with you. I'm sorry that you are unaware that hemp oil cures cancer. Perhaps if you spent more time going over cannabis research, you would know this.

    It's ignorance like this that sets back the use of cannabis for MEDICAL reasons. People read what you post and then automatically believe it.

    Instead of making a blog post that in a very veiled way refers to my previous reply and subsequent labeling of you as idiotic, next time have some balls and allow the comment and address it...I fully expect this comment not to be submitted like my last one was...I'm sure you will address it in another uneducated, veiled post.

    Just educate yourself on cannabis and go back to what you know...reporting bikers.

    1. Hemp is not pot. They make paper from hemp. If you smoke hemp you won't get high. The American Cancer Society states: "There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer." This is exactly what I mean by cult like obsession. Hemp oil and cancer is worth studding on humans but this obsessive drive to use manipulated claims to turn everyone into Cheech and Chong just isn't my thing.

    2. I am very well aware that hemp is not pot. That's a no brainer. It's not a cult like obsession, it's witnessing it with my own eyes. Stay firm in your's the least of your worries.

  3. I was under the impression that pot was used to control nausea from chemotherapy and to stimulate appetite to counter the wasting effects of cancer......not that it would actually cure cancer. But you're right, the 420 crowd believe all kinds of things.

    As well, there is a study I was reading about recently where the lung cancer potential for pot was almost non-existent compared to tobacco, not the other way around. I wouldn't think it matters whether it's filtered or not, all filtering does in both cases is cut down the amount of tar inhaled. But, since with both substances the amount of tar deposited on the surface of the lung is how the active ingredient is moved into the blood stream, that would seem counterproductive.....I think the point of the study as that whether one or the other causes cancer depends on what chemical compounds were being burned and inhaled. You'd have to consider whether a pot smoker was also a tobacco smoker......I've never really heard of someone who smoked only pot getting lung cancer.....other effects such as reduced lung capacity and such, yes, but not cancer.

    1. Yes I was under the same impression that pot was used to control the side effects of chemotherapy and stimulate appetite. Yet many of the 420 guys are calling me stupid for claiming chemotherapy cures cancer when it does. Many of the 420 guys claim pot cures cancer not chemotherapy. There have been studies about hemp out used on animals and as interesting as it is and worth looking into it is inconclusive on humans.

      As far as lung cancer goes, smoke is bad for you. When pot first came out there were medical warnings about the harmful effects of pot smoke on the throat and lungs. That information is still out there but is being overshadowed by the Brave New World cult movement promoting pot's use and abuse.

  4. A lot of the 420 folks believe all kinds of "interesting" stuff about pot, LOL......some of it I agree with and some not......I never had any problems with people who were stoned.....I had a lot with people that are the same time, smoke inhalation is smoke inhalation, right? I can easily see that the smoke from some substances could be more harmful than the smoke from others......likewise we come to "amount", I think people who smoke tobacco are smoking a lot more of it than most people smoke of pot.....not many folks smoking the equivalent of a pack a day or more of pot I think....obviously there's a lot of room to have some decent non-biased scientific studies done on this. I'm pretty sure we won't find that pot cures cancer though.

  5. You dont actually believe that its the smoke from cigarettes that causes cancer do you?

    And no one claims smoking weed cures cancer its eating decarboxylated marijuana oil that is the claim although Im sceptical about that

  6. Smoking pot does not cure cancer I agree with that. cannabis oil not just hemp oil have been used to treat cancer successfully. Obviously the cancer society isnt going to say anything positive about cannabinoids because if they do they lose billions. Chemo has also killed as many people as it has helped.
    Not all pot users are stupid. There are many brilliant pot users out there that do know smoking it does not cure anything.

    1. "... cannabis oil not just hemp oil have been used to treat cancer successfully."

      Please provide documentation.

      Thank you, in advance.

    2. Watch Run From the Cure - The Rick Simpson story. Lots of people there are saying it cured them.

    3. I think what he’s getting at is he would like to see some scientific data not individual testimony. People can get up and say anything like at an Amway meeting or an info commercial. Oh this product is wonderful, it will make hair grow and cure cancer just like raw carrot juice. As he demonstrated one case where the person claimed it cured his cancer was dishonest. It would ne nice to see medical claims out to the test on paper. People who have an agenda will say and believe anything.

    4. Yes I agree. Unfortunately just getting approved to do the testing is difficult enough not to mention the tremendous cost of the tests. Who is going to pay for that?
      Big pharma also have an agenda and have the money, power and political back up to pretty much say and do anything they want.
      Just look at how many people die from properly prescribed prescription drugs..

    5. There is more than one country in the world (Canadians often have to brace themselves from inordinate influence from their southern neighbour). Some countries have marijuana (and other drugs) as legal substances.

      Surely those countries should have valid data if this was truly the case.

      I know people can often be personally convinced of something, but short of actual verifiable unbiased evidence, it is all mere here-say.

      You would be very surprised to find out how effective a mere placebo agent can be in curing many ailments, disabilities, illnesses, etc.

      There may be valid medical uses for marijuana, but until they are clearly shown, it is really nothing more than ... well, almost nothing.

  7. You do all this research on OMG's and I commend you on the impact you have made. But you should do some in a few other areas as well - chemo/radiation and the American/Canadian cancer societies. To make a statement that chemo cures cancer is so laughable and honestly surprising that you are saying it. Chemo kills all types of cells, some types more than others, hoping it gets most of the cancerous cells and praying the body is strong enough to recover from the damage. It does nothing as far as the root problem is concerned. I'm not saying pot cures anything either. As far as the societies go they define greed and corruption. If you are going to donate to Cancer steer clear of them and do some research and give to a group that's actually helping.

  8. The claims about hemp oil and cannabis oil are interesting and worth looking into. Since there have been claims made about the tch in the oil that would imply that it would be cannabis oil not hemp oil. However, many forms of cancer are now treatable. The same forms that people died from only a few years ago.

    Yes chemotherapy has successful treated many forms of cancer. Yes chemotherapy is brutal as it kills every that’s why it takes time to recover from the treatment. Yet not doing the treatment and relying on hokey cures like blazing or raw carrot juice alone is irresponsible.

    I’m basically saying two things. There are a lot of people out there that smoke way too much pot. There is no need to smoke pot every day. There is no need to smoke pot before school or work unless there is a legitimate medical issue. I do find the blind obsessive drive to legalize pot and smoke it every day to be cult like.

    I am a non smoker. I don’t like second hand cigarette smoke. I like second hand pot smoke even less. When people tell me I’m stupid for thinking pot smoke is harmful and I have no right to be concerned about second hand pot smoke that simply reaffirms my resolve to vote no to legalization if it comes to a vote. That is my right.

    I really don’t care if people blaze every day. That is their right. I don’t and I hope my kids don’t. Right now BC has the highest number of pot smokers per capita in the entire country. We don’t need more chronic pot smokers any more than we need more alcoholics. I think the blind obsessiveness about legalization to be just like soma in the book Brave New World.

  9. The idea that smoke, of any kind, entering your lungs and not having some negative effects is silly. Smoke, by it's very nature, has to be bad for your lungs, in some way.

    As a kid growing up, it was hash, European hash, that we used to get. Not all my friends were smokers of it. Neither were they all smokers of ciggs. But I find it interesting, that some of those non-smokers, who would be around me as I "baked" up some hash for a spliff, would comment to me that it smelled really nice to them. I'm talkin the Real Hash, not the majority of the hash we have around nowadays - Not in Ottawa anyway.

    But Mr. K., I believe I can say at least one positive "medical" benefit to smoking at lease some Mary Jane - that It certainly appears to be good for your eyesight.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Ah let's do the math. Dr Smythe showed that Tommy Chong claimed he cued his cancer with hemp oil but then later admitted that was not true. He then simple asked for documentation which we are still waiting for. I haven't blocked anything on this thread yet. Anyone can make a youtube video of someone who smoked pot during their chemotherapy and claim pot cured their cancer not chemo. Dr Smythe simply asked for documentation and no one has produced any. Just name calling for us being stupid for wanting documentation.

  11. pot smokers are gulliable - you can tell them anything and they'll be like yeah yeah man spread the word pot cures aids so they have to legalize it - now doesnt that say something about how pot really distorts reality

  12. Em r you need to stop hitting the bong so much and do some research, learn something you dumb donkey, especially before u are so sure and quick to argue about something. I still smoke pot occasionally but I will say it caused alot of problems for me growing up and its still a drug. The point is that agent k is right! You have to be partially retared to actually think that you can cure cancer with weed lol. Certain compounds like delta 9 or something or another has been shown to reduce inflammation and swelling in tumors in some study's. But the only way you could use them and its not easy is to combine it with traditional ways like chemotherapy. But marijuana does not cure cancer asshole.

  13. I have posted a link at the bottom to a study which shows the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids. I believe the potential needs to be studied further; however, early studies indicate antitumoral activity is extremely high. Although we don't yet have observable evidence of anitumoral activity from cannabinoids in human cases as we do in mice (due to a lack of clinical trials), we also don't have any evidence that it does not have this activity is not caused by these properties. In fact, and as noted above, Preclinical trials have indicated that cannabinoids do have antitumoral activity.

    Preclinical studies of cannabinoids have investigated the following anti-tumor activity:

    Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.

    A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.

    A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.

    A laboratory study of cannabidiol in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells.

    A laboratory study of cannabidiol in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, cannabidiol may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells.

    I think it is safe to say that more research needs to evaluate the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.