Loading

The Feds Finally Recognize The Anti-Cancer Potential Of Cannabis — 36 Years Too Late!

  • by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director March 24, 2011

    Scientific trials have for decades documented the anti-cancer properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledged the herb’s therapeutic utility for patients living with disease or suffering from the adverse side-effects of cancer treatment.

    In a newly added section to the website, entitled ‘Cannabis and Cannabinoids,’ the Institute states:

    Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death.”

    …The potential benefits of medicinal cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.”

    It’s a stunning acknowledgment, given that the NIH is a branch of the very same government that presently maintains that the cannabis plant and all of its naturally-derived components have ‘no accepted medical use.’ Yet it also begs the question: Where has the National Institute of Cancer been all these years?

    After all, the anti-tumor activity of cannabinoids were initially documented in 1975! That’s right; it’s taken 36 years for the Institute to get with the program.

    Hopefully it won’t take them another 36 years to demand that the Feds finally assess whether these preclinical results are replicable in human trials.

    147 Responses to “The Feds Finally Recognize The Anti-Cancer Potential Of Cannabis — 36 Years Too Late!”

    1. Calcula7ed says:

      Yeah and I own the patent on water and oxygen. Probably giving them ideas. The complexities in that one tiny seed are astounding!

    2. 3141 - Brethren of the Genesist Faith . says:

      101 Calcula7ed

      I wouldn’t be to sure about the fresh water – especially the bottled water. It’s been suggested that they are adding a few additives to bottled water – and – the bottles themselves. Up until now – water has cost more than gasoline – but – that’s changing. The air has been fucked up for a long time. It’s also been suggested that the air will soon contain viruses. Keep the faith!

    3. Drat says:

      I found the quote you give above, it just wasn’t on the page you linked preceding the quote. It was in the animal testing section. You should change the link to http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

    4. GS says:

      @ #101 :

      And we all thought that the movie “Spaceballs” was a comedy ! Can’t get that scene of Mel Brooks outta my head – cracking open that can of “fresh air” lmao

    5. Maria says:

      Hope this gets up and starts moving, I have a dear friend that has cancer and I sure don’t want to see him leave us.

    6. graysin says:

      sure canabinoids can cure cancer but smoking weed causes it because any burnt carbon is naturally a carcinogen

    7. 3141 - Brethren of the Genesist Faith . says:

      106 graysin

      CAUTION: Cannabis has not been proven to “cure” cancer. It has only been shown to stop or slow down the growth of cancer cells without effecting the healthy tissue. You have to cut off the blood supply [cancer food] to the effected tissue [and then] say a little prayer.

    8. […] While NORML and The American Independent seem to think this is great news, we here at CannaCentral are leery of the announcement.  Why? […]

    9. […] previous language included in this section of the website stating, “In the practice of integrative oncology, […]

    10. D. Jae says:

      Finally. Whats sad is that if they would have continued research back in the 70’s we would probably be close to a cure by now, or at least have a less painful/dangerous treatment (Chemo).

    11. Jeanne says:

      My mother died in 1992 from colon cancer. She had Chemo and that stuff you can not put down a drain, but this goverment thinks it is safe for my mom to have it shot throught her veins.If this was legal then, my mom might not have died or she would at least not been in so much pain. Shame, shame on this goverment, for thinking they know what is best for us. They know nothing about us,they just want to control us and be in our lives!!If I knew then, what I know now, I would have forced my mom to try cannabis ,at least give it a try.

    12. Lisa says:

      is it me or did they pull this off the page now?!?!

    13. Lisa says:

      wow, what crap:
      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page8

      Due to “misinterpretations” they removed that part of the page. There were no misinterpretations, they were just stating a fact! And they didn’t even commit to the fact, by saying that it MAY cause antitumor effects. This is ridiculous.

    14. Anonymous says:

      what the hell we’re these guys thinking end the drug war it’s crap.makes life harder for me and a lot of other people.

    15. Jason Bursey says:

      Is link available for the .gov version? And who will fund (and approve) human clinical trials? Tramatic brain injury seems to be an issue where cannabis helps; in my personal experience, especially with seizures, so perhaps a looking thru broad agency announcements could help with funding for returning vets (m.a.p.s. is working and sueing for approval to study). Perhaps a fund could be started to help with the cost of human double blind studies? if not the truth will stay underground…. Cannabis/Kava tinctures, terpenes, etc. should all be explored; big pharm and various agencies have plenty of money to hire teams of lawyers to keep the “be tough on crime” line, lotsof paychecks in that racket.

    16. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge […]

    17. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge […]

    18. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge […]

    19. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge […]

    20. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge […]

    21. Phil E. Drifter says:

      I see the religitards are out in force over this story.

    22. Phil E. Drifter says:

      Also it’s funny how neither alcohol nor tobacco/nicotine are listed in their ‘schedule of controlled substances.’ Why do they get to slide by? Nicotine very much does help the brain think, analyze, interpret information; however they can’t advertise that on tv because it’s also the most addictive natural drug on the planet. More addictive than heroin or cocaine.

    23. maxpost (formerly maxwood) says:

      In fairness to those who think they are sincere defending the tobacco industry there is this assistance– “think, analyze, interpret”– attributed to nicotine, and thought might be given to how to get the benefit without the costs (addiction unto death etc.).

      I think (see @53, above) the problem is not the tobacco, or the nicotine, but the hot burning overdose serving system– $igarette– designed to trick the users into addiction to a 700-mg overdose every time they want a “smoke”. (Then the marketers (and taxing govts.) make more money.)

      Note that cigar and pipe tobacco users claim to be non-inhalers– they pump the smoke from harsh uninhalable tobaccos around over their mouthtaste and nosesmell organs, absorbing some of the nicotine into the brain through the mucous membranes. Their longevity figures are better than the big majority (1 bil. worldwide) of poor $igarette slave puff$uckers.

      Other options include ($$) vaporizers, ($) e-chillum, and (cc) a ONE-HITTER with a long flexible stem (drawtube) and a screened crater with 5.5mm (7/32″) inner diameter,
      into which you can insert a STANDARD SERVING (25 mg) of sifted bud particles,
      and holding the tip of the lighter flame 2-3 cm below the opening, heat the herb at least 15 seconds of slow drawing before letting ignite (which can be saved for a second halftoke).

      Then do 30 Warm Wet W’s in and out of a Lunchspielhaus (breadbag). Happy Goetherdaemmerung!

    24. I saw many errors in the comments; here are the facts. Cannabis has been proven to CURE cancer, ALL cancers. Smoking cannabis is not harmful in any way because the bits in the smoke that could be potentially harmful is immediately protected with the anti-cancer properties. No one has every died by overdosing on cannabis.

      [Editor’s note: It is beyond hyperbolic to declare that cannabis cures all cancers. No science supports such an overly broad claim. It is equally incorrect to assert that smoking cannabis is not harmful in any way. That is not what numerous scientific reports indicate.

      Are there some reports, using limited test subjects and limited amounts of cannabis, that both indicate that cannabis can be helpful in retarding some forms of cancer and that cannabis, as compared to tobacco smoke, is not as harmful? Yes. But to employ words like “cures all cancers’ or ‘not harmful in anyway’ is simply not true.

      NORML has been writing about cannabis, cancer and lung function for years…

      No doubt that cannabis should have been made legal yesterday, but trying to convince folks that cannabis cures all cancers and that inhaled smoke is not a problematic health concern will NOT hasten the end of Cannabis Prohibition.

      About the only thing worse than Prohibitionists that lie about cannabis are cannabis reformers who wildly exaggerate about cannabis. Both extremes should let the known science be their better guide.]

    25. […] http://blog.norml.org/2011/03/24/the-feds-finally-recognize-the-anti-cancer-potential-of-cannabis-36… Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_bg", "eeeeee"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_text", "000000"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_link", "cc0000"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_border", "000000"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_url", "5e0000"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "technology"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "medicina-natural-2"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "salud-2"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "cancer"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "cannabis"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "curar-el-cancer"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "marihuana"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "uso"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "uso-medicinal"); GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_below_post"); Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

    26. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge the […]

    27. […] However, in those intervening 34 years, the federal government ignored or purposefully buried emerging confirmation of the medical utility in cannabis known by humanity for 5,000 years.  By the 1950′s, the Boggs Act and Narcotics Control Act made mere possession of marijuana federal crimes, forcing any medical use underground and stifling any medical research.  Dr. Raphael Mechoulam in Israel was able to first identify THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis in 1964.  By 1975, the federal government was aware of the cancer-fighting potential of cannabinoid medicines. […]

    28. […] However, in those intervening 34 years, the federal government ignored or purposefully buried emerging confirmation of the medical utility in cannabis known by humanity for 5,000 years.  By the 1950′s, the Boggs Act and Narcotics Control Act made mere possession of marijuana federal crimes, forcing any medical use underground and stifling any medical research.  Dr. Raphael Mechoulam in Israel was able to first identify THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis in 1964.  By 1975, the federal government was aware of the cancer-fighting potential of cannabinoid medicines. […]

    29. […] However, in those intervening 34 years, the federal government ignored or purposefully buried emerging confirmation of the medical utility in cannabis known by humanity for 5,000 years.  By the 1950′s, the Boggs Act and Narcotics Control Act made mere possession of marijuana federal crimes, forcing any medical use underground and stifling any medical research.  Dr. Raphael Mechoulam in Israel was able to first identify THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis in 1964.  By 1975, the federal government was aware of the cancer-fighting potential of cannabinoid medicines. […]

    30. […] We’ve known for a long time cannabis has many health benefits as well as anti cancer properties[11]. One of the problems politically is that it is inconvenient in that big pharma won’t make much […]

    31. […] We’ve known for a long time cannabis has many health benefits as well as anti cancer properties[11]. One of the problems politically is that it is inconvenient in that big pharma won’t make much […]

    32. […] We’ve known for a long time cannabis has many health benefits as well as anti cancer properties[11]. One of the problems politically is that it is inconvenient in that big pharma won’t make much […]

    33. […] U.S. Attorney Doug Fong stated federal marijuana laws permit mandatory prison sentences for marijuana offenses if a lot more than 100 cultivated […]

    34. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of theNational Institute of Cancer,a component of the U.S. government’sNational Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge the […]

    35. […] properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledge […]

    36. Gumshrud says:

      back in 1972 a friend brought by a bottle of pure, sticky THC/CBD, then we went to the local restaurant after smoking a pinhead amount. if we could make that strength, with an easy to drink oily base, we could cure cancer.

    37. Gumshrud says:

      were talking three strains of cannabis, that saved our NAVY during WW2 making rope that NYLON failed at.
      Why are we so stupid? Can it be just greed. is that what capitalism is GREED?

    38. robert says:

      For it is the tree of Life so free it now!!!

    39. […] the last 10+ years. The research has been somewhat limited in its scope, primarily focusing on the cancer fighting properties contained within THC.  Not satisfied, the inquisitive scientists at San Francisco’s Pacific […]

    40. Terry R says:

      IT IS NEVER TOO LATE! Thank the stars and moon that we do know more and more daily, and that finally, the Feds will get their boots off our necks. My mom died in 1988 of breast cancer. She was 49. Had this been available during her life, would she have used it? WHO NKOWS? Doesn’t matter – we cannot undo the past. We can go forward so again, IT IS NEVER TOO LATE!

    41. RustyBucket says:

      Thats 36 years of “American Dark ages” thanks to Mr Government, and his corrupt ways.

    42. dabutante says:

      The myth that smoking cannabis causes lung cancer has already been debunked.

      “According to the Oncology Report, which posted today about the study, ‘In an analysis of marijuana smokers that excluded tobacco smokers, there were no significant differences in any of the comparisons, including habitual vs. nonhabitual use; number of joints smoked per day; duration of up to 20 years or duration of more than 20 years. The difference in risk is likely related to chemical additives in commercial cigarettes that aren’t present in most methods of inhaling marijuana smoke.’”

      “This new study validates research in 2006 by Dr. Taskin of the University of California which found that not only does marijuana consumption not lead to lung cancer, it may actually protect against it.”

      Read it for yourself here: http://www.theweedblog.com/new-research-finds-habitual-marijuana-consumption-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

    43. Bear Peterson says:

      The NIH has been busy with weed in the last 36 they filed US Patent #6630507 back in Feb. 2nd of 2001 on the medical use of CBD (cannabidoil)in the full text there is a line that reads “Unlike present chemo medications that are all cytotoxic to both healthy as well as cancer cells, cannabidoil has been found to be cytotoxic to cancer cells, yet cytoprotective of healthy cells.”

      Read the synopsis of it straight from the US Patent Office here, http://uspatent6630507.com/

    44. […] vital functions.  Unlike alcohol, cannabinoids are believed to possess both neuroprotective and anti-cancer properties. And perhaps most importantly of all, toking up at a wedding reception won’t leave […]

    45. […] vital functions. Unlike alcohol, cannabinoids are believed to possess both neuroprotective and anti-cancer properties. And perhaps most importantly of all, toking up at a wedding reception won’t leave […]

    46. […] vital functions.  Unlike alcohol, cannabinoids are believed to possess bothneuroprotective and anti-cancer properties. And perhaps most importantly of all, toking up at a wedding reception won’t leave […]

    Leave a Reply