Why Is Marijuana Banned?

The Real Reasons Are Worse Than You Think

By Johann Hari | Source


Across the world, more and more people are asking: Why is marijuana banned? Why are people still sent to prison for using or selling it?

Most of us assume it’s because someone, somewhere sat down with the scientific evidence, and figured out that cannabis is more harmful than other drugs we use all the time — like alcohol and cigarettes.

Somebody worked it all out, in our best interest.

But when I started to go through the official archives — researching my book Chasing The Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs — to find out why cannabis was banned back in the 1930s, I discovered that’s not what happened.

Not at all.

In 1929, a man called Harry Anslinger was put in charge of the Department of Prohibition in Washington, D.C. But alcohol prohibition had been a disaster. Gangsters had taken over whole neighborhoods. Alcohol — controlled by criminals — had become even more poisonous.


So alcohol prohibition finally ended — and Harry Anslinger was afraid. He found himself in charge of a huge government department, with nothing for it to do. Up until then, he had said that cannabis was not a problem. It doesn’t harm people, he explained, and “there is no more absurd fallacy” than the idea it makes people violent.



Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics, poses for a photo on September 24, 1930. (AP Photo)

But then — suddenly, when his department needed a new purpose — he announced he had changed his mind.

He explained to the public what would happen if you smoked cannabis:

First, you will fall into “a delirious rage.” Then you will be gripped by “dreams... of an erotic character.” Then you will “lose the power of connected thought.” Finally, you will reach the inevitable end-point: “Insanity.”

Marijuana turns man into a “wild beast.“ If marijuana bumped into Frankenstein’s monster on the stairs, Anslinger warned, the monster would drop dead of fright.

Harry Anslinger became obsessed with one case in particular. In Florida, a boy called Victor Licata hacked his family to death with an axe. Anslinger explained to America: This is what will happen when you smoke “the demon weed.” The case became notorious. The parents of the U.S. were terrified.


Photo: Victor Licata

What evidence did Harry Anslinger have? It turns out at this time he wrote to the 30 leading scientists on this subject, asking if cannabis was dangerous, and if there should be a ban. Twenty-nine wrote back and said no.

Anslinger picked out the one scientist who said yes, and presented him to the world. The press — obsessed with Victor Licata’s axe — cheered them on.

In a panic that gripped America, marijuana was banned. The U.S. told other countries they had to do the same. Many countries said it was a dumb idea, and refused to do it. For example, Mexico decided their drug policy should be run by doctors. Their medical advice was that cannabis didn’t cause these problems, and they refused to ban it. The U.S. was furious. Anslinger ordered them to fall into line. The Mexicans held out — until, in the end, the U.S. cut off the supply of all legal painkillers to Mexico. People started to die in agony in their hospitals. So with regret, Mexico sacked the doctor — and launched its own drug war.



“The scientific evidence suggests cannabis is safer than alcohol. Alcohol kills 40,000 people every year in the U.S. Cannabis kills nobody.”

But at home, questions were being asked. A leading American doctor called Michael Ball wrote to Harry Anslinger, puzzled. He explained he had used cannabis as a medical student, and it had only made him sleepy. Maybe cannabis does drive a small number of people crazy, he said — but we need to fund some scientific studies to find out.

Anslinger wrote back firmly. “The marihuana evil can no longer be temporized with,” he explained, and he would fund no independent science. Then, or ever.

For years, doctors kept approaching him with evidence he was wrong, and he began to snap, telling them they were “treading on dangerous ground” and should watch their mouths.

Today, most of the world is still living with the ban on cannabis that Harry Anslinger introduced, in the nation-wide panic that followed Victor Licata’s killing spree.

But here’s the catch. Years later, somebody went and looked at the psychiatric files for Victor Licata.

It turns out there’s no evidence he ever used cannabis.

He had a lot of mental illness in his family. They had been told a year before he needed to be institutionalized — but they refused. His psychiatrists never even mentioned marijuana in connection to him.

So, does cannabis make people mad?

The former chief advisor on drugs to the British government, David Nutt, explains — if cannabis causes psychosis in a straightforward way, then it would show in a straightforward way.

When cannabis use goes up, psychosis will go up. And when cannabis use goes down psychosis will go down.


Photo: David Nutt

So does that happen? We have a lot of data from a lot of countries. And it turns out it doesn’t. For example, in Britain, cannabis use has increased by a factor of about 40 since the 1960s. And rates of psychosis? They have remained steady.

In fact, the scientific evidence suggests cannabis is safer than alcohol. Alcohol kills 40,000 people every year in the U.S. Cannabis kills nobody — although Willie Nelson says a friend of his did once die when a bale of cannabis fell on his head.


Photo: Mason Tvert on Thursday, May 6, 2010. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

This is why, in 2006, a young man in Colorado called Mason Tvert issued a challenge to the then-mayor of Denver and eventual governor, John Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper owned brew-pubs selling alcohol across the state, and it made him rich. But he said cannabis was harmful and had to be banned. So Mason issued him a challenge — to a duel. You bring a crate of booze. I’ll bring a pack of joints. For every hit of booze you take, I’ll take a hit of cannabis. We’ll see who dies first.

It was the ultimate High Noon.

Mason went on to lead the campaign to legalize cannabis in his state. His fellow citizens voted to do it — by 55 percent. Now adults can buy cannabis legally, in licensed stores, where they are taxed—and the money is used to build schools. After a year and a half of seeing this system in practice, support for legalization has risen to 69 percent. And even Governor Hickenlooper has started calling it “common sense.”

Oh — and Colorado hasn’t been filled with people hacking their families to death yet.

Isn’t it time we listened to the science — and finally put away Victor Licata’s axe?

Cross-posted from The Influence. Follow them on Facebook here.

About the author: Johann Hari is a British journalist and author. This article is adapted from his New York Times best-sellling book Chasing The Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs. To find out why Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher, Naomi Klein and Elton John have all praised it, click here.

Who is afraid of HEMP?

Months ago I was invited to develop the product design and marketing campaign for Cebedin – premium qualityCBD oil. Considering the product is safe and 100 % legal (it is produced and distributed in Europe) I was shocked to realise marketing campaigns were blocked by Facebook and PayPal blocked company’s account. 

If the product is legal, why? What motivates these giants to continue campaigns about this useful plant? Who orders them to do so?

For those of you who don’t know, CBD is short for Cannabidiol, which is one of more than 110 Cannabinoids identified in Cannabis / Hemp.

CBD is interesting, because it is accounting for up to 40% of plant’s extract and therefore one of key Cannabinoids. The other interesting bit about CBD is the fact it is not psycho-active, so unlike THC – Tetrahydrocannabinol (the other important Cannabinoid) it will not get you high.

This means CBD is safe to use and as you will have no problems discovering there are numerous active and completed clinical studies that prove positive effects of CBD on human health. It is safe for children, seniors and everyone in between. The number of active studies might positively surprise you, but maybe even more so the list of diseases being treated with Cannabinoids.

So, you don’t have to listen to over-excited Cannabis activists screaming about “the cure for Cancer”, looking at it from the scientific point of view will do. I would not go as far as claiming it is the cure for Cancer just yet, but the number of other diseases (in some cases also where synthetic drugs don’t work) is just impressive.

Did you know that Cannabis has been used in medicine throughout human history? First notes about it’s usage come from China and are more than 10.000 years old. Products like “Cannabis drops” could be found in pharmacies across the world even some 50 years ago. 

Countries across the globe encouraged farmers to grow Hemp also because it can me used for producing numerous other products like food, clothing, ropes, fiber, isolation,…

Than something changed and this plant became a treat to the world. It is hard to know what that was, but many believe Cannabis became a threat to Pharma, Tobacco, and Oil industry and the decision was made to ban the plant.

Mostly thank to internet and common sense Cannabis is coming back. Some brave countries across the globe have legalized Cannabis and guess what. Overall crime rate did not go up, number of Heroin addicts did not go up and the economy benefited on many segments. These cases show, without any doubt, criminalizing Cannabis was a mistake. Not to mention HEMP, the variety of Cannabis (almost) without the psycho-active THC.

I once read that banning Hemp because it looks like Marijuana is like making powdered sugar illegal, because it looks like Cocaine. Interesting thought.

CBD oil Cebedin contains below 0.2% THC, which is below detection. That is why it is legal to produce and sell in Europe. It is safe. It will not get you high. It should not be banned anywhere in the world. Well, no plant should be for that matter, but that is a different subject.

If CBD oil Cebedin is made of Hemp, has almost no THC and is legal to produce and distribute, why do Facebook and PayPal have problems with it? If true authorities don't mind, why should Facebook and paypal?

What motivates them to block accounts that promote Hemp. Don’t they realise the internet is about being free and resourceful? Don’t they realise people will never stop searching for the truth?

Shame of you Facebook

Shame on you PayPal

Your actions are simply sad. Oh, and don’t forget to punish the companies who sell that powdered sugar!

Will Marijuana for Sick Kids Get Government to Rethink Weed?

Holli Brown comforts her daughter, Sydni Yunek, who is having a seizure at a medical marijuana support group picnic in Colorado, while Sara Lightle and her daughter, Madeline, stand by. Both mothers moved to the state, where recreational and medical marijuana are legal, to have access to cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive drug extracted from marijuana that can reduce or prevent seizures in some children. 

For years, opponents of legalizing medical marijuana have built their case on the most powerful of political maxims: Think about the children. But today it’s the suffering of children that might eventually compel the federal government to relax its stance.

Thousands of kids across the United States are afflicted with Dravet Syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, rare forms of childhood-onset epilepsy that can cause dozens, even hundreds, of severe seizures each day. Conventional drugs have been ineffective.

Last year, however, the FDA approved a clinical trial of Epidiolex, a drug made from cannabidiol (CBD)—one of 85 active chemical compounds, called cannabinoids, in marijuana. The initial findings were promising. After 12 weeks of treatment, 54 percent of patients experienced fewer seizures and 9 percent saw their seizures cease. The trial has already moved to a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. (Read about the new science of marijuana.)

In addition, scientists are stepping up lab research to better understand the mechanisms of CBD, which, unlike tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is not psychoactive. Joseph Sullivan, the director of the University of California Pediatric Epilepsy Center in San Francisco, who was also one of the investigators in the Epidiolex study, says that one of the most significant developments driving this research is that the medical community is no longer lumping cannabinoids together.

“We now know that it is the cannabidiol alone that exhibits the most antiseizure effects,” he says, “and with some of the new genetically hybridized plants, we have the ability to get higher concentrations of cannabidiol without concomitant concentrations in THC.”



In an irrigated field on the plains east of Denver, marijuana grows discreetly hidden behind outer rows of corn. This crop has little tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana, but high levels of CBD. Some of the harvest will be used to make CBD oil, which is in demand to treat children with seizures. 

But while cannabidiol can’t get anyone high, scientists repeatedly confront legal and bureaucratic obstacles to their research. Since it is extracted from the marijuana plant, it is still classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. That places CBD in the same category as LSD and heroin—a drug with “a high potential for abuse” that “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

Enabling Cannabis Research

The Obama administration or Congress could “reschedule” marijuana to a category that would acknowledge its potential medical benefits and reduce the restrictions on research. But John Hudak, an expert on the legalization debate at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., believes that’s unlikely to happen soon.

Although opinion polls show growing support for medical marijuana, even in conservative states, “there is still a lot of fear about marijuana that exists in the public,” Hudak says. “A vote in favor of rescheduling marijuana could very easily turn into an attack ad in the next campaign: ‘Politician A is making it easier for your kids to get high.’”

And while the administration could reschedule marijuana on its own, “this is not an area where they feel like engaging in a fight with Congress,” Hudak says. In general, Hudak believes there’s not much enthusiasm among elected officials to spend political capital on medical marijuana because “only a small community is very passionate about it.”

If anything, progress on the issue could stall in the coming months. Loretta Lynch, the new U.S. attorney general, revealed during her Senate confirmation hearings that she is less reform-minded on marijuana legalization than her predecessor. And those who see the recent departure of DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart as an opportunity for change should be prepared for disappointment. Caught between old-school drug warriors and reformers, President Obama opted to name an acting DEA chief who will likely maintain the status quo for the remainder of the administration, Hudak notes.



Ray Mirzabegian produces cannabidiol in his laboratory in Los Angeles. He first made it for his daughter who has Dravet Syndrome, a childhood-onset epilepsy. Now, at least 50 people now use his product, and he has a waiting list of more than 1,000.  

Changing Opinions on Pot

Still, Hudak believes that if demand for cannabidiol research increases, it could have a lasting impact by reducing marijuana’s stigma. “There is a lot of ignorance in the political community about CBD,” he says. “I think people, particularly opponents of reform, think of marijuana as a rolled joint and that's it. When, in reality, it's a very diverse product.”

From Hudak’s perspective, the interest in cannabinoid medicine signals a shift among medical professionals—whose minds, he says, can be “more difficult to change” than those in Congress. Earlier this year, for the first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics called for the rescheduling of marijuana to make it easier to develop treatments for children "with life-limiting or severely debilitating conditions for whom current therapies are inadequate."

Marijuana, increasingly available in U.S. statesAs states loosen restrictions, one politically appealing option is cannabidiol (CBD) oil, which has some of marijuana's health effects without the high.

Sullivan, a pediatric neurologist, doubts the FDA would have granted permission for Epidiolex trials were it not for the “social media buzz” stirred two years ago when celebrity doctor Sanjay Gupta reversed his opposition to medical marijuana while working on a high-profile CNN documentary that highlighted CBD. And Hudak says that, as more of the medical community throws its support behind marijuana-derived treatments, it will become easier for politicians to sell constituents on reform: “They can say, ‘Listen, we’re not big fans of marijuana, but the last thing we want to do is come between you and your doctor.’”

But where do federal agencies currently stand? One way to gauge their thinking is to look at what’s going on at the University of Mississippi, the site of the only cannabis farm sanctioned by the government. The facility is overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which places orders for strains it wants for research.

Last month, the DEA signed off on a NIDA request to more than triple federal marijuana cultivation from its previously stated 2015 quota of 276 pounds (125 kilograms) to 881 pounds (400 kilograms), explaining that “research and product development involving cannabidiol is increasing beyond that previously anticipated.”

Also, for the first time, the government contract with the university includes an authorization to directly manufacture cannabidiol (up to 220 pounds, or 100 kilograms). The contract includes an option to scale up overall marijuana production from as low as 1.5 acres to as high as 12 acres.



A family waits their turn for cannabidiol in a tiny converted storage room behind a Los Angeles marijuana dispensary. Parents use the oil to treat a range of diseases that afflict their children, such as cancer, epilepsy, autism, and Crohn’s disease. Anecdotal evidence suggests it can be effective, but little medical research has been conducted. 

A Door Cracks Open

Mahmoud ElSohly, who runs the NIDA Marijuana Project at the University of Mississippi, cautions against reading too much into these figures. “NIDA has been criticized over the years for not having this, not having that, when an investigator needs something,” he says, “so they just wanted to be proactively ready to respond to the needs of the research community.”

Hudak shares ElSohly’s view, though he also thinks it’s an indicator that the administration is thinking long term, preparing for a time when the federal government might relax its restrictions. “One of the best characteristics of the president is his willingness to lay the groundwork for change that he thinks will eventually happen, even in the face of not yet being able to effect that change,” he says.

Meanwhile, GW Pharmaceuticals, the British company that manufactures Epidiolex, has announced that the FDA has approved initial, preclinical studies to see whether cannabidiol can be used to treat newborn children with neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy—a type of brain injury caused by lack of oxygen during birth.



Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist at New York University, examines his patient Madison Johnson. She is one of 25 people enrolled in Devinsky’s clinical trial of Epidiolex, a drug made from cannabidiol. Johnson’s parents say the drug has reduced the duration and intensity of her seizures and allowed her to be more focused. Initial results from the study have been promising, and it has moved on to the next phase.

At present, there is no FDA-approved drug for those children, who suffer from several disabilities, including multiple seizures. But researchers speculate that CBD could be an especially useful treatment, since it not only controls seizures but also has potent anti-inflammatory properties that could mitigate the effects of brain damage.

With this latest announcement, it’s increasingly clear the door has cracked open for FDA-approved cannabinoid research. For now, these studies are limited to rare disorders without effective treatments. But other scientists hope to expand research on how cannabis extracts could be used to treat Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. If such research shows promising results, the federal government could find itself under pressure to reschedule cannabis and recognize the drug’s medical value.

Source of article and images: 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150515-medical-marijuana-federal-policy-research/ 

Rick Simpson

Do you know who is Rick Simpson? Probably the best way to describe him would be to invite you to watch his video:

He is probably the first to start the movement that change the way we see cannabis. And, when cannabis is finally legal and we start using it to treat many diseases, we will have to thank Rick Simpson, because he started that path.

Please visit Rick's official web page - Phoenix tears - and please donate & support this hero!

We also recommend buying his book.

Be careful: Fake BIO products from Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, India, Romania and Malta

We received this letter about fake products sold as Bio and we believe it is smart to keep the eyes open.

SUBJECT: information related to obligations under Article 30, paragraph 2, Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007, about irregularities found on organic products issuing from Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, India, Romania and Malta.

At the last SCOF meeting the Italian delegation provided some information about Vertical Bio, an operation conducted jointly by ICQRF, the Central Inspectorate for Quality Protection and Repression of Agri-Food Frauds and by the Guardia di Finanza (Financial Police) of Pesaro, empowered by the Attorney-General’s Office of Pesaro.

The operation "Vertical bio" is a complex Criminal Police activity representing the development and continuation of the judicial surveys carried out as part of the operation "Green War", undertaken in April 2013.

In this respect, we would like to point out that the investigations conducted by the Judicial Authority are still in progress and therefore subject to the investigation secrecy. However, upon request of ICQRF, the Judicial Authority issued  a special clearance to the dissemination of certain information in order to comply with the reporting obligations foreseen by the existing legislation for the organic sector .

On this basis, ICQRF sent the following information with a specific note (Register no. 3494 of 27 February 2014).

The investigations highlighted that the operators involved had put in place a system of certification and trade of organic products able at creating a series of frauds of huge proportions on the market. The fraudulent activity was related to imports from Third Countries or intra-Community supplies of grains (legumes, cereals, oil-seeds and other industrial products ) intended for processing and foodstuff for human and /or domestic animals consumption.
The products covered by the investigation were issuing from different countries : Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and India, directly towards Italy or through Malta, Slovenia and Romania.

By examining the information and documentation acquired by the Judicial Authority, not available to our Directorate-general (DG), there was evidence of a conflict of interests among Control Bodies operating abroad. As investigation on the case showed, the Control Bodies directly involved, only for the activities carried out in the above mentioned Third Countries, are: Suolo e Salute s.r.l. (through its foreign offices listed in Annex 1); Biozoo s.r.l. (based in Sassari, Italy); and the ICS Biozoo s.r.l. (based in Moldova).

The certification system of the foreign offices was set up in order to allow for adjustments and forgeries of documents and, to this purpose, the Judicial Authority is evaluating further measures to be taken towards the mentioned foreign offices.

Concerning the certification activities carried out in the Moldovan, Ukrainian and Kazakh territories by ICS Biozoo s.r.l., we believe important to point out that the “certified” holdings migrated, after the issuance of special discharges in 2012 and 2013, from Suolo e Salute s.r.l. (headquarters operating in Transnistria) initially to Biozoo s.r.l., and after to ICS Biozoo s.r.l., (headquarters operating in Moldova) .

The foreign companies involved in the illegal trafficking of organic agricultural products were first included in the certification system run by Suolo e Salute s.r.l. (foreign office), which de facto promoted in favor of Biozoo s.r.l the transit of foreign operators connected to the chains directly controlled by the Italian crooked importers.

Batches of irregular goods were reported by our DG through the OFIS system: INTC00025, 30 and 31 towards India, INTC0002 towards Ukraine, no. 713 towards Malta and no. 619 towards Romania. Further OFIS notification will be open as soon as the Criminal Investigation Department will send information about further irregular batches.

Given the above arguments, it is in our opinion important to point out the possible risk associated with the phenomenon and the situation reported above, providing here below the list of those foreign operators whose agricultural products, intended for domestic consumptions, were found with evident irregularities in 2013:

a) S.C. JustOrganic s.r.l. based in Tulcea (Romania) , already reported in OFIS, certified by SC Cert Organic s.r.l.  based in Bacau ( Romania ), recently revoked by the Romanian authorities .
In this respect, we point out that in the course of the investigation activities, under investigation secrecy, 126 tons of organic wheat stored at the importer Romani S.p.A. of San Giorgio Piacentino (Piacenza) were impounded on 29 January 2014;

b) SC Meridian s.r.l. (Romania)
In the course of the investigation activities, under investigation secrecy, on January 2013 135 tons of soybeans from organic farming found contaminated with Glyphosate were delivered to Romani S.p.A. of San Giorgio Piacentino (Piacenza);
c) Raj Food International (India) certified by Biocert India, already reported in OFIS;
d) Harit Impex (India) certified by Biocert India, already reported in OFIS;
e) Geo Fresh Organics Ltd (India).

Furthermore, we consider appropriate to inform you about those foreign companies that, on the basis of investigations conducted by the Judicial Authority, marketed in previous years (2007-2012) potentially irregular organic agricultural products, which were not presenting the correct requirements following the regulations in force, and vis-à-vis of whom, therefore, it is important to maintain an appropriate level of risk:

f) Agroidea s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova), first certified by Suolo e Salute s.r.l. and, from 1 July 2010, by  Biozoo s.r.l. and, finally, by ICS Biozoo s.r.l;
g) Im Agricereal s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova), first certified by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.; the company terminated its activity on 17 March 2011, it was then replaced by Im Project agro s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova), certified by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
h) Orom Imexpo s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova), certified by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
i) Tutum s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova), first certified by  Suolo e Salute s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova) and after by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
l) Chateau Varteley (Republic of Moldova), certified by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
m) Hendrix plus Ldt e Hendrix Enterprises Ldt (Republic of Moldova), certified by Suolo e Salute s.r.l. and consolidated at a later stage in Im Agricereal s.r.l., certified by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
n) Rusagro s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova), first certified by  Suolo e Salute s.r.l. (Republic of Moldova) and after by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
o) Antas I s.r.l. (Ukraine), certified by Suolo e Salute s.r.l.; the company terminated its activity in the year 2013 and was repalced by the company Kabis s.r.l. certified by ICS Biozoo s.r.l.;
p) SC Agribioalimentare s.r.l. (Romania), certified by Bios s.r.l.;
q) Bozzòla Trading s.r.l. (Romania) changed into Lenter Trading;
r) Interbio srl (Romania);
s) SC Agrobio Comert Delta Dunari s.r.l. (Romania);
t) Geco Ltd (Kazakhstan);
u) Delva Corporation Ltd import/export (Malta) certified by the Maltese Control Body MCCA .

The certifications of the Control Body “ICS Biozoo srl” (Moldova) were indicated by the investigations as unreliable. Since “ICS Biozoo srl” is accredited by the Moldovan Accreditation Body and recognized by the Republic of Moldova’s Ministry of Agriculture, we do not have further information.

The above mentioned foreign companies marketed organic products, at different times, from 2007 to 2013, to Italian companies, at present suspended  by their Control Bodies, found as well involved in the operation "Vertical bio". They are the following :

a) Fa.zoo. Mangimi s.r.l. of Pesaro, certified by Suolo e Salute s.r.l. of Fano (Pesaro-Urbino);
b) Bozzòla S.p.A. of Casaleone (Verona), certified by ICEA - Istituto per la Certificazione Etica ed Ambientale  of Bologna and withdrawn from the list of importers already in 2011;
c) Romani S.p.A. of San Giorgio Piacentino (Piacenza), certified by QCertificazioni s.r.l. of Monteriggioni (Siena);
d) F.lli Grimaldi & C. s.n.c. of Guglionesi (Campobasso) certified by Suolo e Salute s.r.l. of Fano (Pesaro-Urbino).

It is important to emphasize that the complex system of fraud was disclosed only through the use of complex info-investigative systems (including, for example, wire tapping), in the absence of which all ordinary activities of administrative control or supervision, undertaken annually by Certification Bodies, could have been unable to bring up to the light the real dimensions of the phenomenon.

Taking into account the requirements of confidentiality due to not invalidate investigations underway, we will be pleased to provide you with further details and information on the issue as soon as they will become available.

Sincerely yours

Emilio Gatto
Director-General

20 Medical Studies That Prove Cannabis Can Cure Cancer

Another interesting article about cannabis and its possibility to cure cancer. Again we wish to remind you that marijuana THC extract is not the same thing (quite different actually) as hemp seed oil, but we still find it extremely interesting:

20 Medical Studies That Prove Cannabis Can Cure Cancer

August 23, 2013 by Arjun Walia.

Source of original article: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/ 

Cannabis has been making a lot of noise lately. Multiple states across the United States and countries around the world have successfully legalized medical Marijuana, and the Uruguay parliament recently voted to create the world’s first legal marijuana market. This is good news as the health benefits of Cannabis are vast, with multiple medical and scientific studies that confirm them. On the other hand, arguments against the use of marijuana is usually published in Psychiatric journals, which show no scientific evidence that Cannabis is harmful to human health. 

All psychological evaluations from the intake of cannabis are largely based on assumptions, suggestions and observations (1). When we look at the actual science behind Cannabis, the health benefits can be overwhelming. So what does one who opposes the use of cannabis base their belief on? Nothing, not scientific evidence anyways. The negative stigmatism attached to marijuana is due to it’s supposed psychotropic effects, yet again, there is no scientific evidence to show that marijuana has any psychotropic effects. Nonetheless, cannabis has recently been the focus of medical research and considered as a potential therapeutic treatment and cure for cancer.

Cannabis is a great example of how the human mind is programmed and conditioned to believe something. Growing up, we are told drugs are bad, which is very true, however not all substances that have been labelled as “drugs” by the government are harmful. Multiple substances are labelled as a “drug” in order to protect corporate interests. One example is the automobile and energy industry, a car made from hemp is stronger than steel, and can be fuelled from hemp alone. Henry Ford demonstrated this many years ago. Hemp actually has over 50,000 uses!

Let’s take a look at the science behind Cannabis and Cancer. Although Cannabis has been proven to be effective for a large range of ailments, this article will focus mainly on it’s effectiveness in the treatment of cancer. Cannabinoids may very well be one of the best disease and cancer fighting treatments out there.

Cannabinoids refer to any of a group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate cannabinoid receptors in the body.

The body itself produces compounds called endocannabinoids and they play a role in many processes within the body that help to create a healthy environment. Cannabinoids also play a role in immune system generation and re-generation. The body regenerates best when it’s saturated with Phyto-Cannabinoids.

Cannabinoids can also be found in Cannabis. It is important to note that the cannabinoids are plentiful in both hemp and cannabis. One of the main differentiations between hemp and cannabis is simply that hemp only contains 0.3% THC while cannabis is 0.4% THC or higher. (Technically they are both strains of Cannabis Sativa.)  Cannabinoids have been proven to reduce cancer cells as they have a great impact on the rebuilding of the immune system. While not every strain of cannabis has the same effect, more and more patients are seeing success in cancer reduction in a short period of time by using cannabis.

While taking a look at these studies, keep in mind that cannabis can be much more effective for medicinal purposes when we eat it rather than smoking it. Below are 20 medical studies that prove cannabis can be an effective treatment and possible cure for cancer. Please keep in mind that this is a very short list of studies that support the use of medicinal marijuana. Please feel free to further your research, hopefully this is a good starting point.

Brain Cancer

1.  A study published in the British Journal of Cancer, conducted by the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Complutense University in Madrid, this study determined that Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth. They were responsible for the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and was achieved with zero psychoactive effects. THC was found to decrease tumour cells in two out of the nine patients.

2. A study published in The Journal of Neuroscience examined the biochemical events in both acute neuronal damage and in slowly progressive, neurodegenerative diseases. They conducted a magnetic resonance imaging study that looked at THC (the main active compound in marijuana) and found that it reduced neuronal injury in rats. The results of this study provide evidence that the cannabinoid system can serve to protect the brain against neurodegeneration.

3. A study published in The Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics already acknowledged the fact that cannabinoids have been shown to possess antitumor properties. This study examined the effect of cannabidiol (CBD, non psychoactive cannabinoid compound) on human glioma cell lines. The addition of cannabidiol led to a dramatic drop in the viability of glioma cells. Glioma is the word used to describe brain tumour.  The study concluded that cannabidiol was able to produce a significant antitumor activity.

4. A study published in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics outlines how brain tumours are highly resistant to current anticancer treatments, which makes it crucial to find new therapeutic strategies aimed at improving the poor prognosis of patients suffering from this disease. This study also demonstrated the reversal of tumour activity in Glioblastoma multiforme.

Breast Cancer

5. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine, conducted by the California Pacific Medical Centre determined that cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion. They also demonstrated that CBD significantly reduces tumour mass.

6. A study published in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics determined that THC as well as cannabidiol dramatically reduced breast cancer cell growth. They confirmed the potency and effectiveness of these compounds.

7. A study published in the Journal Molecular Cancer showed that THC reduced tumour growth and tumour numbers. They determined that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis and impair tumour angiogenesis (all good things). This study provides strong evidence for the use of cannabinoid based therapies for the management of breast cancer.

8. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) determined that cannabinoids inhibit human breast cancer cell proliferation.

Lung Cancer

9. A study published in the journal Oncogene, by Harvard Medical Schools Experimental Medicine Department determined that THC inhibits epithelial growth factor induced lung cancer cell migration and more. They go on to state that THC should be explored as novel therapeutic molecules in controlling the growth and metastasis of certain lung cancers.

10. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine by the Institute of Toxicology and Pharmacology, from the Department of General Surgery in Germany determined that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell invasion. Effects were confirmed in primary tumour cells from a lung cancer patient.  Overall, data indicated that cannabinoids decrease cancer cell invasiveness.

11. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine, conducted by Harvard Medical School investigated the role of cannabinoid receptors in lung cancer cells. They determined its effectiveness and suggested that it should be used for treatment against lung cancer cells.

Prostate Cancer

12. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine illustrates a decrease in prostatic cancer cells by acting through cannabinoid receptors.

13. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine outlined multiple studies proving the effectiveness of cannabis on prostate cancer.

 14. Another study published by the US National Library of Medicine determined that clinical testing of CBD against prostate carcinoma is a must. That cannabinoid receptor activation induces prostate carcinoma cell apoptosis. They determined that cannabidiol significantly inhibited cell viability.

Blood Cancer

15. A study published in the journal Molecular Pharmacology recently showed that cannabinoids induce growth inhibition and apoptosis in matle cell lymphoma. The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, The Swedish Research Council and the Cancer Society in Stockholm.

16. A study published in the International Journal of Cancer also determined and illustrated that cannabinoids exert antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects in various types of cancer and in mantle cell lymphoma.

17. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine conducted by the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology by Virginia Commonwealth University determined that cannabinoids induce apoptosis in leukemia cells.

 Oral Cancer

18. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine results show cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of cellular respiration and are toxic to highly malignant oral Tumours.

Liver Cancer

19. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine determined that that THC reduces the viability of human HCC cell lines (Human hepatocellular liver carcinoma cell line) and reduced the growth.

Pancreatic Cancer

20. A study published in The American Journal of Cancer determined that cannabinoid receptors are expressed in human pancreatic tumor cell lines and tumour biopsies at much higher levels than in normal pancreatic tissue. Results showed that cannabinoid administration induced apoptosis. They also reduced the growth of tumour cells, and inhibited the spreading of pancreatic tumour cells.

Source of original article: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/ 

Science: Cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer – the evidence so far

A great article about THC and it's effect on cancer. Again we wish to remind you of the difference between hempseed oil and hemp extract. Not the same thing, although we strongly believe BOTH can help!

Source of original article: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

Few topics spark as much debate on this blog and on our Facebook page than cannabis.

So we thought we’d take a look at the common questions raised about the evidence and research into cannabis, cannabinoids (the active chemicals found in the plant and elsewhere) and cancer, and address some of the wider issues that crop up in this debate.

We’ve broken it down under a number of headings:

• What are cannabinoids and how do they work?
• Can cannabinoids treat cancer? (including lab research, clinical research and unanswered questions)
• Can cannabis prevent or cause cancer?
• What about controlling cancer symptoms such as pain or sickness?
• Is Cancer Research UK investigating cannabinoids?
• It’s natural so it must be better, right?
• “Have you seen this video? This guy says cannabis cures cancer!”
• “It’s all a big conspiracy – you don’t want people to be cured!”
• “What’s the harm? There’s nothing to lose.”
• “Big Pharma can’t patent it so they’re not interested.”
• “Why don’t you campaign for cannabis to be legalised?”

This post is long, but can be summarised by saying that at the moment there isn’t enough reliable evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – can effectively treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing around the world.

Read on to get the full picture.

What are cannabinoids and how do they work?

“Cannabinoids” is a blanket term covering a family of complex chemicals (both natural and man-made) that lock on to cannabinoid receptors – protein molecules on the surface of cells.

Humans have been using cannabis plants for medicinal and recreational purposes for thousands of years, but cannabinoids themselves were first purified from cannabis plants in the 1940s. The structure of the main active ingredient of cannabis plants – delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) – was discovered in the 60s. It wasn’t until the late 1980s that researchers found the first cannabinoid receptor, followed shortly by the discovery that we create cannabinoid-like chemicals within our own bodies, known as endocannabinoids.

We have two different types of cannabinoid receptor, CB1 and CB2, which are found in different locations and do different things. CB1 is mostly found on cells in the nervous system, including certain areas of the brain and the ends of nerves throughout the body, while CB2 receptors are mostly found in cells from the immune system. Because of their location in the brain, it’s thought that CB1 receptors are responsible for the infamous ‘high’ (known as psychoactive effects) resulting from using cannabis.

Over the past couple of decades scientists have found that endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors are involved in a vast array of functions in our bodies, including helping to control brain and nerve activity (including memory and pain), energy metabolism, heart function, the immune system and even reproduction. Because of this molecular multitasking, they’re implicated in a huge range of illnesses, from cancer to neurodegenerative diseases.

Can cannabinoids treat cancer?

There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are interesting biological molecules. Hundreds of scientists around the world are investigating their potential in cancer and other diseases – as well as the harms they can cause – brought together under the blanket organisation The International Cannabinoid Research Society.

Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and many hundreds of scientific papers looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then.

But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.

Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.

Lab research

Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.

Virtually all the research into cannabinoids and cancer so far has been done in the lab.

Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:

• Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis
• Stopping cells from dividing
• Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours
• Reducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue
• Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death

All these effects are thought to be caused by cannabinoids locking onto the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. It also looks like cannabinoids can exert effects on cancer cells that don’t involve cannabinoid receptors, although it isn’t yet clear exactly what’s going on there.

So far, the best results in the lab or animal models have come from using a combination of highly purified THC and cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabinoid found in cannabis plants that counteracts the psychoactive effects of THC. But researchers have also found positive results using synthetic cannabinoids, such as a molecule called JWH-133.

It’s not all good news though, as there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer.

For example, some researchers have found that although high doses of THC can kill cancer cells, they also harm crucial blood vessel cells, although this may help their anti-cancer effect by preventing blood vessels growing into a tumour. And under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow, or have different effects depending on the dosage and levels of cannabinoid receptors present on the cancer cells. [Edited for clarity and to add reference - KA 27/07/12]

Others have discovered that activating CB2 receptors may actually interfere with the ability of the immune system to recognise and destroy tumour cells, although some scientists have found that certain synthetic cannabinoids may enhance immune defences against cancer.

Furthermore, cancer cells can develop resistance to cannabinoids and start growing again, although this can be got round by blocking a certain molecular pathway in the cells known as ALK.

Combining cannabinoids with other chemotherapy drugs may be a much more effective approach.

And yet more research suggests that combining cannabinoids with other chemotherapy drugs may be a much more effective approach. This idea is supported by lab experiments combining cannabinoids with other drugs including gemcitabine and temozolomide.

Clinical research

But that’s the lab – what about clinical research involving people with cancer? Results have been published from only one clinical trial testing whether cannabinoids can treat cancer in patients, led by Dr Manuel Guzman and his team in Spain.

Nine people with advanced, terminal glioblastoma multiforme – an aggressive brain tumour – were given highly purified THC through a tube directly into their brain.

Eight people’s cancers showed some kind of response to the treatment, and one didn’t respond at all. All the patients died within a year, as might be expected for people with cancer this advanced.

The results from this study show that THC given in this way is safe and doesn’t seem to cause significant side effects. But because this was an early stage trial, without a control group, it’s impossible to say whether THC helped to extend their lives. And while it’s certainly not a cure,  the trial results suggest that cannabinoids are worth pursuing in clinical trials.

A handful of other clinical trials of cannabinoids are currently being set up. One early-stage trial testing a synthetic cannabinoid called dexanabinol in patients with advanced cancer will be recruiting here in Leeds and Newcastle, through the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) Network funded by Cancer Research UK and the devolved Departments of Health. [Edited to add more information about the trial - KA 22/08/12]

Unanswered questions

There are still a lot of unanswered questions around the potential for using cannabinoids to treat cancer.

The biggest issue is that there isn’t enough evidence to show that they can treat cancer in people, although research is still ongoing around the world.

And it’s not clear which type of cannabinoid – either natural or synthetic – might be most effective, what kind of doses might be needed, or which types of cancer might respond best to them. So far there have been intriguing results from lab experiments with prostate, breast, lung cancer, skin, bone and pancreatic cancers, glioma brain tumours and lymphoma.

But the take-home message is that different cannabinoids seem to have different effects on various cancer types, so they are far from being a ‘universal’ treatment.

Most research has been focused on THC, which occurs naturally in cannabis plants, but researchers have found that different cannabinoids seem to work better or worse different types of cancer cells. Lab experiments have shown promising results with THC on brain tumour and prostate cancer cells, while CBD seems to work well on breast cancer cells.

Then there’s the problem of the psychoactive effects of THC, particularly at high doses, although this can be counteracted by giving it together with CBD. Because of this problem, synthetic cannabinoids that don’t have these effects might be more useful in the long term.

There are also big questions around the best way to actually get the drugs into tumours. Because of their chemical makeup, cannabinoids don’t dissolve easily in water and don’t travel very far in our tissues. This makes it hard to get them deep into a tumour, or even just deliver them into the bloodstream in consistently high enough doses to have an effect.

The clinical trial led by Dr Guzman in Spain involved directly injecting cannabinoids into patients’ brains through a small tube. This isn’t an ideal method as it’s very invasive and carries a risk of infection, so researchers are investigating other delivery methods such as tablets, oil injections, mouth sprays or even microspheres.

We also don’t know whether cannabinoids will help to boost or counteract the effects of chemotherapy, nor which combinations of drugs might be good to try. And there are currently no biological markers to help doctors identify who might benefit from cannabinoids and who might not – remember that one patient on the brain tumour trial failed to respond to THC at all.

None of these issues are deal-breakers, but these questions need answering if there’s any hope of using cannabinoids to effectively and safely treat cancer patients.

There are hundreds of exciting potential cancer drugs being developed and tested in university, charity and industry labs all over the world – cannabinoids are merely a small part of a much larger picture.

Most of these compounds will never make it into the clinic to treat patients for a huge range of reasons including toxicity, lack of effectiveness, unacceptable side effects, or difficulty of delivering the drug to tumours.

Without doing rigorous scientific research, we will never sift the ‘hits’ from the ‘misses’. If cannabinoids are ever to get into clinical use, they need to overcome these hurdles and prove they have benefits over existing cancer treatments.

Can cannabis prevent or cause cancer?

So that’s a brief look at cannabinoids to treat cancer. But can they stop the disease from developing? Or could they play a role in causing cancer?

In experiments with mice, animals given very high doses of purified THC seemed to have a lower risk of developing cancer, and there has been some research suggesting that endocannabinoids (cannabinoids produced by the body) can suppress tumour growth.

But there’s no solid scientific evidence at the moment to show that cannabinoids or cannabis can cut the risk of cancer in people.

When it comes to finding out whether cannabis can cause cancer, the evidence is a lot murkier. This is mainly because most people who use cannabis smoke it mixed with tobacco, a substance that definitely does cause cancer.

This complex issue recently hit the headlines when the British Lung Foundation released a study suggesting that the cancer risks of cannabis had been underestimated, although this has been questioned by some experts including Professor David Nutt.

What about controlling cancer symptoms such as pain or sickness?

Although there’s a lack of data showing that cannabinoids can effectively treat cancer, there is good evidence that these molecules may be beneficial in other ways.

As far back as the 1980s, cannabinoid-based drugs – including dronabinol (synthetic THC) and nabilone – were used to help reduce nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But there are now safer and more effective alternatives and cannabinoids tend to only be used where other approaches fail.

In some parts of the world – including the Netherlands – medical use of marijuana has been legalised for palliative use (relieving pain and symptoms), including cancer pain. For example, Dutch patients can obtain standardised, medicinal-grade cannabis from their doctor, and medicinal cannabis is available in many states in the US.

But one of the problems of using herbal cannabis is about dosage – smoking it or taking it in the form of tea often provides a variable dose, which may make it difficult for patients to monitor their intake. So researchers are turning to alternative dosing methods, such as mouth sprays, which deliver a reliable and regulated dose.

Large-scale clinical trials are currently running in the UK testing whether a mouth spray called Sativex (nabiximols) – a highly purified pharmaceutical-grade extract of cannabis containing THC and CDB – can help to control severe cancer pain that doesn’t respond to other drugs.

There may also be potential for the use of cannabinoids in combating the loss of appetite and wasting experienced by some people with cancer, although a clinical trial comparing appetite in groups of cancer patients given cannabis extract, THC and a placebo didn’t find a difference between the treatments.

Is Cancer Research UK investigating cannabinoids?

We want to see safe, reliable and effective treatments become available for patients as quickly as possible. We receive no government funding for our research, and it is all paid for by the generosity of the public.  This is obviously not a bottomless purse, and we do not have financial reserves to draw on.

Because of this limitation, we can only fund the very best research proposals that come to us that will bring benefits to people with cancer.  We’ve previously written in detail about how we fund research projects.

Cancer Research UK has funded research into cannabinoids, notably the work of Professor Chris Paraskeva in Bristol investigating the properties of cannabinoids as part of his research into the prevention and treatment of bowel cancer. He has published a number of papers detailing lab experiments looking at endocannabinoids as well as THC, and written an interesting review looking at the potential of cannabinoids for treating bowel cancer.

Our funding committees have previously received other applications from researchers who want to investigate cannabinoids that have failed to reach our high standards for funding. If we receive future proposals that do meet these stringent requirements, then there is no reason why they would not be funded – assuming we have the money available to do so.

Finally, as mentioned above, we are indirectly supporting an early stage clinical trial of the cannabinoid drug dexanabinol in patients with advanced cancer through our funding of the ECMC Network, together with the devolved UK Departments of Health. [Added 22/08/12 - KA]

“It’s natural so it must be better, right?”

There’s no doubt that the natural world is a treasure trove of biologically useful compounds. But whole plants or other organisms are a complex mix of hundreds of chemicals (not all of which may be beneficial) and contains low or variable levels of active ingredients. This makes it difficult to give accurate doses and runs the risk of toxic side effects.

For example, foxgloves (Digitalis) are a useful source of chemicals called cardiac glycosides, first purified in 1785 – a date widely considered to be the beginning of modern drug-based medicine. These drugs are now used to treat many thousands of people around the world with heart failure and other cardiac problems. But the entire plant itself is highly toxic, and eating just a small amount can kill.

As another example, although the antibiotic penicillin was first discovered in a fungus, it doesn’t mean that someone should munch some mould when suffering an infection. In fact, the bug-beating powers of ‘natural’ penicillin are confined to a relatively small range of bacteria, and chemists have subsequently developed a wider range of life-saving antibiotics based on the drug’s structure.

Aspirin is another old drug, first discovered in the form of salicylic acid in white willow bark. But this naturally-occurring chemical causes severe stomach irritation, which led to the German company Bayer developing an alternative version – acetylsalicylic acid – which was kinder to the tummy. Aspirin is now arguably one of the most successful drugs of all time, and is still being investigated for its potential in preventing or even treating cancer.

Numerous potent cancer drugs have also been developed in this way – purifying a natural compound then improving it and testing it to create a beneficial drug – including taxol (originally from yew leaves); vincristine and vinblastine (from rosy periwinkles); camptothecin (from the Chinese Xi Shu tree); colchicine (from crocuses); and etoposide (from the May Apple). And we recently wrote about a clinical trial being run by our scientists to test whether curcumin, a purified chemical from the curry spice turmeric, could help treat people with advanced bowel cancer.

But it bears repeating that the fact that these purified drugs in controlled, high doses can treat cancer doesn’t mean that the original plant (or a simple extract) will have the same effect.  So although cannabis contains certain cannabinoids, it doesn’t automatically follow that cannabis itself can treat cancer.

As we said above, there is no good evidence that natural cannabinoids, at the doses present in simple cannabis preparations, can treat cancer in patients. It’s also completely unknown whether there may be any other chemicals in ‘street’ cannabis extracts that could be harmful to patients or even encourage tumour growth.

“Have you seen this video? This guy says cannabis cures cancer!”

There is a strong and persistent presence on the internet arguing that cannabis can cure cancer. For example, there are numerous videos and unverified anecdotes claiming that people have been completely cured of cancer with cannabis, hemp/cannabis oil or other cannabis derivatives.

Despite what the supporters of these sources may claim, videos and stories are not scientific evidence for the effectiveness of any cancer treatment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – YouTube videos are emphatically not scientific evidence, and we are not convinced by them.

Based on the arguments presented on these kinds of websites, it’s impossible to tell whether these patients have been ‘cured’ by cannabis or not. We know nothing about their medical diagnosis, stage of disease or outlook. We don’t know what other cancer treatments they had. We don’t know about the chemical composition of the treatment they got. And we only hear about the success stories – what about the people who have tried cannabis and not been cured? People who make these bold claims for cannabis only pick their best cases, without presenting the full picture.

This highlights the importance of publishing data from scientifically rigorous lab research and clinical trials. Firstly because conducting proper clinical studies enables researchers to prove that a prospective cancer treatment is safe and effective. And secondly because publishing this data allows doctors around the world to judge for themselves and use it for the benefit of their patients.

This is the standard to which all cancer treatments are held, and it’s one that cannabinoids should be held to too. Internet anecdotes and videos prove nothing and benefit no-one – we need reliable, scientific research, which (as discussed above) is exactly what is going on.

“It’s all a big conspiracy – you don’t want people to be cured!”

As we’ve previously said, accusations that we are somehow part of a global conspiracy to suppress cancer cures are as absurd as they are offensive. Not only to the thousands of our scientists, doctors and nurses who are working as hard as they can to find more effective treatments for the complex set of challenging diseases we call cancer, but also the hundreds of thousands of people in the UK and beyond who support this life-saving work through generous donations of money, energy and time.

Our aim is to beat cancer, and we believe that the best way to do this through rigorous scientific research aimed at understanding cancer on a biological level and working out how to prevent, detect and treat it more effectively. This approach has helped to change the face of cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, leading to a doubling in survival rates over the past 40 years.

As a research-based organisation, we want to see reliable scientific evidence to support claims made about any cancer treatment, be it conventional or alternative.  The claims made for many alternative cancer therapies still require solid evidence to support them, and it often turns out that these ‘miracle cures’ simply don’t work when they’re put to the test.

This doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy to suppress the “True Cure for Cancer” – it means that doctors and researchers want to see solid evidence that the claims made by people peddling these treatments are true.

This is vital because lives are at stake. Some people may think that a cancer patient has nothing to lose by trying an alternative treatment, but there are big risks.

“What’s the harm? There’s nothing to lose.”

If someone chooses to reject conventional cancer treatment in favour of unproven alternatives, including cannabis, they may miss out on treatment that could save or significantly lengthen their life. They may also miss out on effective symptom relief to control their pain and suffering, or the chance to spend precious time with their loved ones.

Furthermore, many of these unproven therapies come at a high price, and are not covered by the NHS or medical insurance. And, in the worst cases, an alternative therapy may even hasten death.

Although centuries of human experimentation tells us that naturally-occurring cannabinoids are broadly safe, they are not without risks. They can increase the heart rate, which may cause problems for patients with pre-existing or undiagnosed heart conditions. They can also interact with other drugs in the body, including antidepressants and antihistamines. And they may also affect how the body processes certain chemotherapy drugs, which could cause serious side effects.

There is also a reported case where a Dutch lung cancer patient took cannabis extract that had been bought from a street source. Within a matter of hours she was in hospital in a coma. This highlights the risks of taking ‘street’ cannabis extracts of unknown concentration and quality in an uncontrolled way, and accentuates the need for careful research into how best to use cannabinoids for treating patients.

When conventional treatment fails, there is little chance that turning to an unproven alternative touted on the internet will provide a cure.

It is a sad fact that although huge progress has been made over recent years, many thousands of people in the UK lose their lives to cancer every year – a situation that we urgently want to change through research. But when conventional treatment fails, there is little chance that turning to an unproven alternative touted on the internet will provide a cure.

In this situation, we recommend that cancer patients talk to their doctor about clinical trials that they may be able to join, giving them access to new drugs and providing valuable data that will help other sufferers in future.

“Big Pharma can’t patent it so they’re not interested.”

Some people argue that the potential of cannabinoids is being ignored by pharmaceutical companies, because they can’t patent the chemicals occurring in cannabis plants. But pharma companies are not stupid, and they are quick to jump on promising avenues for effective therapies.

As we’ve shown, there are hundreds of researchers around the world investigating cannabinoids, in both private and public institutions. And there are many ways that these compounds can be patented – for example, by developing more effective synthetic compounds or better ways to deliver them.

On the flip side, other people argue that patients should be treated with ‘street’ or homegrown cannabis preparations, and that the research being done by companies and other organisations is solely to make money and prevent patients accessing “The Cure”. This is also a false and misleading argument, analogous to suggesting that patients in pain should buy heroin or grow opium poppies rather than being prescribed morphine by a doctor.

The best way to ensure that the benefits of cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – are brought to patients is through proper research using quality-controlled, safe, legal, pharmaceutical grade preparations containing known dosages of the drugs.

To do this requires time, effort and money, which may come from companies or independent organisations such as charities or governments. And, ultimately, this investment needs to be paid back by sales of a safe, effective new drug.

We are well aware of the issues around drug pricing and availability – for example, the recent situations with abiraterone and vemurafenib – and we are pushing for companies to make new treatments available at a fair price. We would also hope that if any cannabinoids are shown to be safe and effective enough to make it to the clinic, they would be available at a fair price for all patients that might benefit from them.

“Why don’t you campaign for cannabis to be legalised?”

As things currently stand, cannabis is classified as a class B drug in the UK, meaning that it is illegal to possess or supply it.

It is not for Cancer Research UK to comment on the legal status of cannabis, its use or abuse as a recreational drug, or its medical use in any other diseases. But we are supportive of properly conducted scientific research that could benefit cancer patients.

In summary

At the moment, there simply isn’t enough evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – works to treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing. And there’s certainly no evidence that ‘street’ cannabis can treat cancer.

As a research-based organisation, we continue to watch the progress of scientists around the world for advances that may benefit people with cancer. And although cannabinoid research is an interesting avenue, it’s certainly not the only one.

Kat

Note: We’ve already entered into two lengthy, time-consuming and ultimately circular debates about cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer which you can read here and here.

Because of this, we are taking the unusual step of keeping public comments closed on this post, as we feel that we have fully laid out our position. If you have a considered comment you would like us to publish on this post you can contact the blog team at scienceblog.cancer.org.uk

Finally, we are grateful to Dr Manuel Guzman (Complutense University, Madrid), Professor Vincenzo di Marzo (Institute of Biomolecular Chemistry, Naples, and GW Pharmaceuticals) and Dr Wai Liu (St George’s Hospital, London) for helpful discussions as we were writing this post.

Source of original article: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/