take away the idiotic smoking ban

why is there a smoking ban in the first place? most people would say it is a health issue, and anti smokers are forever whinging about fag smoke,the health aspect for non smokers has never conclusively proved and has largely been manufactured. .a big proportion of these whingers drive cars, who seem quite happy to drive around blowing vile exhaust fumes everywhere (inside and outside) it is quite evident that these fumes ar e vastly worse then fags, therefore these people should have absolutely no right to complain. for those too ignorant to understand it is very easy to put all this to the test in the public eye and sort out this matter once and for all. we could invite these whingers to a large tv studio with one or two cars inside also, we could then close all the doors and windows and switch on the car engines,all this could be done on prime time television, is there anyone who is clever enough to tell me what would happen next? my smart money is on these whingers being brown bread in a short while.. i also have a clear message to this government. labour lost the last election because of two major issues .the smoking ban and too much immigration. a lot of smokers will not ever vote labour ever again and a lot of people because of the immigration. i dont see a lot of change from these two government damaging policies, clearly the voters got it wrong again, seems to me we aught to look towards the bnp and suchforth at the next election, its a fair assumption more people will go down this path if things carry on like they are. people are getting increasingly cheesed off with government bullcrap, and they will show you this at the polling booths

Why is this idea important?

why is there a smoking ban in the first place? most people would say it is a health issue, and anti smokers are forever whinging about fag smoke,the health aspect for non smokers has never conclusively proved and has largely been manufactured. .a big proportion of these whingers drive cars, who seem quite happy to drive around blowing vile exhaust fumes everywhere (inside and outside) it is quite evident that these fumes ar e vastly worse then fags, therefore these people should have absolutely no right to complain. for those too ignorant to understand it is very easy to put all this to the test in the public eye and sort out this matter once and for all. we could invite these whingers to a large tv studio with one or two cars inside also, we could then close all the doors and windows and switch on the car engines,all this could be done on prime time television, is there anyone who is clever enough to tell me what would happen next? my smart money is on these whingers being brown bread in a short while.. i also have a clear message to this government. labour lost the last election because of two major issues .the smoking ban and too much immigration. a lot of smokers will not ever vote labour ever again and a lot of people because of the immigration. i dont see a lot of change from these two government damaging policies, clearly the voters got it wrong again, seems to me we aught to look towards the bnp and suchforth at the next election, its a fair assumption more people will go down this path if things carry on like they are. people are getting increasingly cheesed off with government bullcrap, and they will show you this at the polling booths

Legalise Life – Cannabis CURES CANCER

Let me first say, Moj, no one has yet asked to legalise life, so take your ban hammer somewhere else.

Most people may not be aware, but the cannabis plant can, in fact, cure cancer.  Under the current situation where people hold great prejudice against this medicinal herb, including the mainstream propaganda machine, people are dying of cancer and undergoing crippling chemotherapy when they need not.

My proposal is to legalise the right to life, this includes being given the right of using the cannabis plant to make and use hemp oil as shown in the movie called Run From The Cure, as a preventative and active curing agent for their bodies.

Hemp oil can be used to treat diabetes, ulcers, depression, cancer and many more ailments that currently only the corporate controlled medical industry has the legal right to treat.

 Before you nay-sayers attempt to thwart this proposal as "Oh, another guy that wants to get high", just remember this isn't about getting high, it's about curing a desease or multiple deseases you may have that would kill you.  It's well documented in medical journals, online and offline, that THC and other chemicals in cannabis help with the aforementioned ailments, so do your own research and learn the truth.

Why is this idea important?

Let me first say, Moj, no one has yet asked to legalise life, so take your ban hammer somewhere else.

Most people may not be aware, but the cannabis plant can, in fact, cure cancer.  Under the current situation where people hold great prejudice against this medicinal herb, including the mainstream propaganda machine, people are dying of cancer and undergoing crippling chemotherapy when they need not.

My proposal is to legalise the right to life, this includes being given the right of using the cannabis plant to make and use hemp oil as shown in the movie called Run From The Cure, as a preventative and active curing agent for their bodies.

Hemp oil can be used to treat diabetes, ulcers, depression, cancer and many more ailments that currently only the corporate controlled medical industry has the legal right to treat.

 Before you nay-sayers attempt to thwart this proposal as "Oh, another guy that wants to get high", just remember this isn't about getting high, it's about curing a desease or multiple deseases you may have that would kill you.  It's well documented in medical journals, online and offline, that THC and other chemicals in cannabis help with the aforementioned ailments, so do your own research and learn the truth.

If Cannabis Could Cure Cancer, Would’nt You Want It To Be Legal?

Vote Yes and allow the research to be done, there is already evidence that cannabis causes the growth in tumours and cancers to stop.

http://leavesofgrass.info/info/Non-Psychoactive-Cannabinoids.pdf

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Vote Yes and allow the research to be done, there is already evidence that cannabis causes the growth in tumours and cancers to stop.

http://leavesofgrass.info/info/Non-Psychoactive-Cannabinoids.pdf

 

 

 

Review the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

Review and revise the HFEA to end research on embryonic stem cells, which has produced NO feasible treatments for any diseases. Re-focus the money on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which has already produced promising treatments for leukemia, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, with other treatments in the pipeline.

I'm not suggesting the government has to say that an embryo has a complete set of human rights, but the government must at least acknowledge that there are many people, both religious people, medical ethicists and philosophers, who are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an embryo is created with the specific purpose of being destroyed in research.

Proposed European legislation to change the rules on medical testing may make embryonic testing even more common, and it is necessary that we legislate now to prevent this further attack on the integrity of human life at its' origin.

Why is this idea important?

Review and revise the HFEA to end research on embryonic stem cells, which has produced NO feasible treatments for any diseases. Re-focus the money on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which has already produced promising treatments for leukemia, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, with other treatments in the pipeline.

I'm not suggesting the government has to say that an embryo has a complete set of human rights, but the government must at least acknowledge that there are many people, both religious people, medical ethicists and philosophers, who are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an embryo is created with the specific purpose of being destroyed in research.

Proposed European legislation to change the rules on medical testing may make embryonic testing even more common, and it is necessary that we legislate now to prevent this further attack on the integrity of human life at its' origin.

Smoking-only establishments

I'm reposting this because the original entry seems to have been blocked – no comments visible, not rating, no redirection to another entry. Just an accident, I'm sure.

While I agree in general with the ban on smoking in public places, it is ludicrous that a publican or restauranteur cannot open a smokers-only establishment, staffed by smokers and catering only for people who want to smoke with their beer or meal.

Why is this idea important?

I'm reposting this because the original entry seems to have been blocked – no comments visible, not rating, no redirection to another entry. Just an accident, I'm sure.

While I agree in general with the ban on smoking in public places, it is ludicrous that a publican or restauranteur cannot open a smokers-only establishment, staffed by smokers and catering only for people who want to smoke with their beer or meal.

Open up the microwave links that are causing damage and cancers to public scrutiny.

Allow any person to discover if there is a microwave link passing near or whathave you a property or region.

These are dangerous, likely to cause repeated equipment damage and cancers.

 We know of one that as the dish is damaged it is sending out microwave signals in enough power to cause mal working of things like Sky boxes and TV's.

 I have tracked the main signal from TX to RX and know it is there. Another in Wales was blocked by a man who discovered it and his property was sequestrated. There is a D notice on this but as this is a govt site that is not active!!!

Why is this idea important?

Allow any person to discover if there is a microwave link passing near or whathave you a property or region.

These are dangerous, likely to cause repeated equipment damage and cancers.

 We know of one that as the dish is damaged it is sending out microwave signals in enough power to cause mal working of things like Sky boxes and TV's.

 I have tracked the main signal from TX to RX and know it is there. Another in Wales was blocked by a man who discovered it and his property was sequestrated. There is a D notice on this but as this is a govt site that is not active!!!

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Marijuana is a cure for cancer

Smoking causes cancer, so if you smoke Marijuana it is true that you risk cancer just like you do if you smoke tobacco. But the important point to remember with this is that it is the smoke that damages your health, not the marijuana. Smoking is not illegal. Marijuana is illegal, more specifically THC is illegal. But it is now a proven fact that THC has no cancer causing properties at all, but infact is a most effective cure for cancer. It has been proven by Scientist from Oxford and Harvard, and by a canadian called Rick Simpson who succesfully cured many people from many serious cancers with THC in the form of hemp oil. There has never been any good reason for Marijuana to be illegal. It is a natural substance and, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive or harmful in any way. Now that is has become confirmed that THC is a cure for cancer, aswell as being an effective medicine for sufferers of diabetes, aids, MS, arthritis and much more, it is simply criminal for any government to outlaw it. For everyday that goes by there are people suffering and dying from cancer because they are being denied a possible cure. THC is a harmless, natural drug which has much medicinal value. It is irrelevant wether you personally like using marijuana as a social drug, an alternative to alcohol. To make a natural plant illegal and to deam those who use it for medicinal or social reasons as criminals is nothing short of fashism. It is oppression to criminalise people who are causing no harm to anyone. I would like to know how politicians sleep at night when they deny people medicine. When they deny a cure for cancer that is completely natural and could be completely free to all those that suffer daily. Is it because it is natural and there for could be free. Is because it could replace so many less effective, more harmful medicines that are man made, unnatural and there for patentable and basically make lots of money.

Why is this idea important?

Smoking causes cancer, so if you smoke Marijuana it is true that you risk cancer just like you do if you smoke tobacco. But the important point to remember with this is that it is the smoke that damages your health, not the marijuana. Smoking is not illegal. Marijuana is illegal, more specifically THC is illegal. But it is now a proven fact that THC has no cancer causing properties at all, but infact is a most effective cure for cancer. It has been proven by Scientist from Oxford and Harvard, and by a canadian called Rick Simpson who succesfully cured many people from many serious cancers with THC in the form of hemp oil. There has never been any good reason for Marijuana to be illegal. It is a natural substance and, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive or harmful in any way. Now that is has become confirmed that THC is a cure for cancer, aswell as being an effective medicine for sufferers of diabetes, aids, MS, arthritis and much more, it is simply criminal for any government to outlaw it. For everyday that goes by there are people suffering and dying from cancer because they are being denied a possible cure. THC is a harmless, natural drug which has much medicinal value. It is irrelevant wether you personally like using marijuana as a social drug, an alternative to alcohol. To make a natural plant illegal and to deam those who use it for medicinal or social reasons as criminals is nothing short of fashism. It is oppression to criminalise people who are causing no harm to anyone. I would like to know how politicians sleep at night when they deny people medicine. When they deny a cure for cancer that is completely natural and could be completely free to all those that suffer daily. Is it because it is natural and there for could be free. Is because it could replace so many less effective, more harmful medicines that are man made, unnatural and there for patentable and basically make lots of money.

Pubs choice, smoking or not?

This is one law which is deffinately opressive. The tax paying smoker became a 2nd class citizen overnight, having to stand outside in all weathers.It has most certainly led to scocial isolation. Let the landlords decide. A true picture would then emerge. This ban was brought in as supposidly 3/4 of the population wanted it. I have never met anyone who was asked!

Why is this idea important?

This is one law which is deffinately opressive. The tax paying smoker became a 2nd class citizen overnight, having to stand outside in all weathers.It has most certainly led to scocial isolation. Let the landlords decide. A true picture would then emerge. This ban was brought in as supposidly 3/4 of the population wanted it. I have never met anyone who was asked!

Repeal the EU Directive on Food Supplements

The EU directive on food supplements took away many vitamins, mineral and supplements from our shelves.

It is known by science that our modern diets are too low in nutrients and that this causes disease.

Allow us to make our own choces about what we buy for our own health with our own money and repeal this directive.

 

Why is this idea important?

The EU directive on food supplements took away many vitamins, mineral and supplements from our shelves.

It is known by science that our modern diets are too low in nutrients and that this causes disease.

Allow us to make our own choces about what we buy for our own health with our own money and repeal this directive.

 

Smoking

I think that New Labour definitly became overzealous with the anti smoking bills and in the end smokers were left feeling like social pariahs. I appreciate that the governments idea was that by stopping people smoking that it would save alot on the NHS. But they fail to grasp human nature, if a person is adviced on what to do they will but force someone to accept it whether they like it or not and they will rebel. I'm not even a smoker and I feel that they are being victimised. Help people if they want it, even raise the price but make them stand outside in the pouring rain 5 metres from a public building is sheer persecution. New Labour were even talking of making it illegal all together and yet I gather you can still smoke in the House of Commons? These anti smoking laws should be receeded. There just going to encourage more people to rebel and smoke illegally.

Why is this idea important?

I think that New Labour definitly became overzealous with the anti smoking bills and in the end smokers were left feeling like social pariahs. I appreciate that the governments idea was that by stopping people smoking that it would save alot on the NHS. But they fail to grasp human nature, if a person is adviced on what to do they will but force someone to accept it whether they like it or not and they will rebel. I'm not even a smoker and I feel that they are being victimised. Help people if they want it, even raise the price but make them stand outside in the pouring rain 5 metres from a public building is sheer persecution. New Labour were even talking of making it illegal all together and yet I gather you can still smoke in the House of Commons? These anti smoking laws should be receeded. There just going to encourage more people to rebel and smoke illegally.

Cannabis Cures Cancer, Healthier Than Drinking Tea!

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice — lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation … Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma … We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects.)

In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.
"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman said.

In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."
Guzman provided the title of the work — "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute — and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.
The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" — two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study — in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:

"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again Œdraw back the veil‚ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.

Why is this idea important?

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice — lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation … Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma … We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects.)

In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.
"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman said.

In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."
Guzman provided the title of the work — "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute — and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.
The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" — two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study — in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:

"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again Œdraw back the veil‚ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.

Lift the ban on Tobacco Advertising

I think the ban on Tobacco Advertising should be lifted for many reasons.

It should be brought back with a 50% tax on the revenue received from the advertisers. Tobacco companies will still choose to advertise and it will be a massive source of revenue for the country when it needs it most. It also assists with sporting sponsorship. The ban at the moment only appeases the nanny state but shows no benefit to society in actually reducing the take up of smoking. It also insults the inteligence of society by assuming that people can not make informed decisions and cannot educate their children appropriately.

There is also a level of hypocrisy associated with this ban that does not sit comfortably with me. The government is happy to receive the tax revenue from tobacco (which almost endorses its use) but bans the advertising.  I would also argue that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking yet the same dracconian laws do not apply to drinking.

 

Why is this idea important?

I think the ban on Tobacco Advertising should be lifted for many reasons.

It should be brought back with a 50% tax on the revenue received from the advertisers. Tobacco companies will still choose to advertise and it will be a massive source of revenue for the country when it needs it most. It also assists with sporting sponsorship. The ban at the moment only appeases the nanny state but shows no benefit to society in actually reducing the take up of smoking. It also insults the inteligence of society by assuming that people can not make informed decisions and cannot educate their children appropriately.

There is also a level of hypocrisy associated with this ban that does not sit comfortably with me. The government is happy to receive the tax revenue from tobacco (which almost endorses its use) but bans the advertising.  I would also argue that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking yet the same dracconian laws do not apply to drinking.

 

Repeal and change the Smoking Ban

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its placeĀ could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its placeĀ could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.