I have heard rumors that the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana can prevent cancer. Is this true?
Obviously the effects would be countered through smoking if this were true, but keep in mind that marijuana can be used recreationally in other ways, like cooking it into foods.
I wonder if this rumor started because cancer patients often smoke it to combat nausea from chemotherapy.
I’m pretty sure regular smokers have developed cancer later in life. I’m not saying marijuana causes cancer, but I doubt that it’ll prevent it either. Or maybe just certain cancers. IANAD, etc…
It is not true. Cannabinoids can be used to treat symptoms of cancer chemotherapy, as Revtim says, such as vomitting, loss of appetite, nausea, pain etc, but there is no strong evidence of any anticancer effect of THC.
There is evidence of THC augmenting cancer, though, in some studies (sorry no cite to hand that doesn’t involve a license). It can suppress the antitumour immune response in some animal models, leading to enhanced tumour growth.
Of course it does, if it’s smoked at least. Burning vegetation is not great for your lungs, no matter how much fun it is. Does anyone know of research giving evidence that vaporizers are really significantly safer than simply smoking marijuana? I’ve heard the claim before, and it makes sense, but I’m not sure how to evaluate it.
It didn’t do poor Bob Marley any good.
It makes sense in theory, but with many vaporizers being at home creations (like the growing popularity of the clear-lightbulb vaporizer) it would be difficult to regulate the temperature.
It’s a schedule 1 drug, which, along with LSD and a couple others, means the government prevents publicly funded studies. Does anyone have cites for their assertions? To my knowledge, research on schedule 1 drugs in the U.S. is illegal. Correct me if I’m wrong. In short, there’s no way to really answer your question.
This most definitely slipped my mind… But what about Alaska? It is legal in Alaska in certain amounts (up to 4oz and/or 24 or less plants, in your home), so it would seem the door would be opened for public research.
Marijuana hasn’t been legal in Alaska since 1991.
From Here - WARNING - PDF!
It is allowed for medicinal use, but as always, federal law trumps state law. Marijuana is most difinitely still illegal under federal law, and the feds have been known to bust grow operations in states where medical marijuana is allowed.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4522
But yes, I forgot about the fact that federal law takes precedence over state law.
The legend that marijuana cures cancer has been around since the early 1970’s, and perhaps earlier.
I was not aware that the state had ruled that the initiative passed in 1990 was not constitutional. I stand corrected.
Research on Schedule I drugs is not illegal. Lots of permits are needed, and a great degree of regulation and monitoring is done, but research projects are done.
Back in med school, one of my Professors, Dr. Solomn Snyder, head of the Neuroscience department at Johns Hopkins, the “The godfather of synaptic chemistry”, had a Schedule I permit. He did research with those substances. He still does, as far as I know. He just got awarded the National Medal of Science earlier this year.
Doc S. was quite entertaining during his lectures. He talked about those neuroactive chemicals like LSD, Delta-9 THC (which he referred to as “the good stuff”), endorphins, opiates, ketamine, and PCP. Fascinating! He also served beer to us students in his noontime special tutorial on opiates, which led me to be a bit buzzed for my afternoon clinical skills course. Which was just a harbinger of things to come for me. :eek: Good thing I never got a Schedule I permit. 
There’s a big difference between in vitro, molecular level research and in vivo clinical research. In the former, working with controlled substances is not a big deal at all, there are literally thousands upon thousands of papers looking at the pharmacology and biochemistry of natural products like the cannabinoids, cocaine alkaloids, morphine alkaloids etc, all of which are controlled substances. So it would be quite possible to answer the OP at this level, and establish that THC has no known anticancer effect in any in vitro study or in vivo animal model.
As Qadop says, clinical research is a different story, with a far, far higher level of regulation. You are right to point out that a controlled trial of the anti-cancer effects of weed smokiing in humans would be very difficult to set up and implement in the US, it would be regulated out the bazoo.
Google is thy friend
there have been some twelve or so studies looking at the anticancer properties of THC that showed positive results
e.g. http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm
a good review of them is avaialble at http://americanmarijuana.org/Guzman-Cancer.pdf (pdf)
A local research group, RTI International controls contracts to grow marijuana for research purposes.