Why is Hemp illegal if it cures cancer?

Why is Hemp illegal if it cures cancer? Topic: Case study cancer patient
June 21, 2019 / By Burton
Question: new studies have shown hemp oil can cure many forms of terminal cancer. True or false, why is this not in any news or being made on national commercial? maybe because this government is based on better profit instead of better efficiency? and if that is the case, why does nobody care? Second write-... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oPaSnjHawo youtube - hemp oil cures cancer also you can google rick simpson.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why is Hemp illegal if it cures cancer?

Aldon Aldon | 4 days ago
I know for a fact it stops many kinds of pain. I know that docs give it to cancer patients and I'm sure it has LOTS of other great medicinal properties. The Government can't figure out how to get their "share" from anyone who uses it. Imagine all the money the drug companies would lose if it were legalized! We couldn't have that now could we?
👍 256 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Why is Hemp illegal if it cures cancer? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Case study cancer patient

Aldon Originally Answered: Why is Hemp illegal if it cures cancer?
I know for a fact it stops many kinds of pain. I know that docs give it to cancer patients and I'm sure it has LOTS of other great medicinal properties. The Government can't figure out how to get their "share" from anyone who uses it. Imagine all the money the drug companies would lose if it were legalized! We couldn't have that now could we?

Tabby Tabby
This Site Might Help You. RE: Why is Hemp illegal if it cures cancer? new studies have shown hemp oil can cure many forms of terminal cancer. True or false, why is this not in any news or being made on national commercial? maybe because this government is based on better profit instead of better efficiency? and if that is the case, why does nobody care?
👍 110 | 👎 -4

Reenie Reenie
Where is your proof that it cures cancer. I would also see the link you have found. Hemp can be legally obtained with a prescription. The only illegal thing is to use it recreational without a prescription. Just as it is with any other controlled substance. Just like Cocaine, Its legitimate medical use is to stop nose bleeds if used under medical supervision for such it is legal. If bought without prescription from a non pharmaceutical licensed person for non medical reasons it is illegal. Like I said I would like to see these studies that show hemp cures cancer. For years people with terminal cancer have been prescribed hemp products to help with nausea and appetite for people on chemotherapy.
👍 107 | 👎 -12

Michal Michal
Now that I've written this, I see that "lo_mcg" has already addressed this beautifully. I do have a few additions. I watched the youtube link. This does not say that a single patient has been cured with hemp oil. This says there are signs that it may be useful in affecting one of the genes that regulate the aggressive spread of some cancer cells - breast cancer was specifically mentioned. If you listen, it says that animal trials and then human trials are needed to prove any efficacy. It specifically says that we are years away from an answer as far as whether this helps or not These stories come out all the time in the media. There is usually a headline that reads "Cancer Cure Found" - as if cancer is one disease. These stories can be cruel in raising false hope for people in battles with malignancies. My office would receive dozens of calls when stories about "shark oil" or "apricot pits" curing cancer were reported in the media. I would have to patiently explain that these were false or as yet unproven claims. Of course one of our newer effective chemotherapy drugs came from the bark of the Pacific yew tree (Taxol) http://www.phcog.org/Taxus/Taxus_Web.htm... so we do find good treatments in nature. But Taxol required years of research, and it does not cure everyone or every type of cancer. Until the clinical studies are done to prove efficacy, no such claim of cancer cure can be made with hemp oil. BUT - any cancer patient who wants to give this a try would have my blessing. We often run out of things to try in advanced cancers. I have always liked trying things that "can't hurt and might help." As the video says, we already know that cannabinoids are relatively non-toxic. Here's a German story regarding the proposed mechanism of action http://www.salem-news.com/articles/janua... Here's a Harvard study showing promise in mice. http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_h... Please note there are differences between efficacy in mice and in humans. This is very early in the investigation process. Note that the headlines for both of these links above are sensationalized - exaggerated. Boy do I dislike that ! One last note - I think Marijuana will be legalized under the Obama administration in the U.S. He has other problems to deal with first. It has never made sense to allow alcohol and not allow marijuana. Alcohol is far more dangerous to health. Tobacco is more harmful to health than any other drug. An estimated 31% of all cancer deaths in the U.S. could be prevented if people would all stop smoking tobacco. Tobacco use kills nearly half a million Americans each year, and an estimated 1 out of 6 deaths in the U.S. result from smoking - - - yet tobacco is legal - it has to be. We cannot legislate away the use of tobacco or alcohol. We learned that in Prohibition days. Obama is extremely intelligent. He realizes it is nuts to keep marijuana illegal. Crowded jails. Warfare on the Mexican border with drug runners. The expense of the war on marijuana which is a losing battle. R.J. Reynolds will make huge profits when it is legal and Eastern Kentucky will become a prosperous region. Mark my words. I don't use marijuana personally, but I don't mind anyone else using this - except perhaps airline pilots, school bus drivers, and a few others.
👍 104 | 👎 -20

Lewella Lewella
Studies are just studies just studies - studies are not proof of anything, they simply suggest possibilities for further research. Didn't you notice that the scientist in the link described it as a 'promising avenue'? - he wasn't claiming it as proof. The voice over explains that it hasn't even gone to animal trials yet. If people google Rick Simpson as you suggest, they'll find the video Run From The Cure - well, that's something I've watched more than once. What I saw was a number of unsubstantiated testimonials - no way of knowing if these people had ever had the conditions they claimed, and certainly no way of knowing if they'd been 'cured'. But I'll accept they had those conditions. And as I've had cancer, the ones who'd had cancer were the ones to whom I paid most attention. And you know what? - they'd had conventional treatment too, but had chosen to credit the hemp oil with the improvement in their condition. This often happens with alternative treatments - a patient has chemo and feels crap, because chemo makes you feel crap. After the chemo is over, s/he takes some 'alternative' medicine; soon s/he begins to feel better. Well, that's no surprise, you do begin to feel better when chemo is over. But s/he chooses to give the credit for feeling better, and for subsequent improvements in her/his condition, to the unproven alternative rather than to the conventional treatments, which have been rigourously tested and proven in double-blind clinical trials. And that's what's happened here. I had surgery, chemo and radiotherapy five years ago for an aggressive, advanced cancer; I am fit and well, with no sign of cancer at my last routine check-up. Chemo and rads aren't perfect, far from it; but we know because they have been tested and proven that they save many lives and prolong many others. The cancer patients in the film are fit and well following conventional treatment too. And anything that claims to cure everything from cancer to weight problems to insomnia has to be regarded with suspicion at best. The conspiracy you suggest doesn't exist; the basis of the argument that pharmeceutical companies and governments would want to cover up a 'natural' treatment is that naturally occuring substances can't be patented, so there would be no profit in them. In fact it's common for synthetic derivatives to be made that are an improvement on the original, and it's also common to get patents on the methods of isolating or administering the substance. So even if a pharmeceutical couldn't make money directly from hemp oil, if hemp oil, or marijuana, were effective they could make plenty of money and get plenty kudos from developing a safer, more effective derivative. The chemotherapy drug Taxol is derived from yew. But so far hemp oil and marijuana have not been proven effective against cancer, so pharmaceutical companies don't bother with them. They're after profits, after all. And cancer is not one disease , it's an umbrella term for over 200 diseases. The difficulty with finding a 'cure for cancer' is that different cancers are caused by different things, so no one strategy can prevent them .They all respond to different treatments so no one treatment can cure them, so there isn't a magic bullet that cures all cancers and there never will be.
👍 101 | 👎 -28

Lewella Originally Answered: Medical Science has empirical cures for only 26 diseases? How true is this?
I'm not sure your number is accurate. I don't think they have that many "cures" worked out. The word cure goes completely against all good science and in the Hippocratic Oath doctors take they admit, swear to, and become committed to prevention is far preferable to curing disease. In fact, in the oath it clear states "avoiding those twin traps of over treatment and therapeutic nihilism" is of particular interest when you realize that the meaning of therapeutic nihilism is a contention that curing people, or societies, of their ills by treatment is impossible. In medicine, it was connected to the idea that many "cures" do more harm than good, and that one should instead encourage the body to heal itself. Degenerative diseases like cancer, diabetes, stroke are NOT "cured" by modern medicine. The body's immune system is what heals the body, not modern medicine. Treating symptoms is the hallmark of today's medicine "cures." Polio, for instance was on it's way out long before the vaccine was developed and Salk himself, said that more people got polio from the vaccine than from the disease, yet to hear medical people talk, the vaccine cured polio. Much of what is going on in medical science today is pure guesswork as you have indicated in your question. It's a huge misconception that SCIENCE is leading the charge of medical research. More and more facts are being uncovered that show "ghost writers" and forging of documents in many research projects are taking place, along with profit agendas deciding what goes into the final reports and what does not go in or is buried deep in the document and obscured in regard to the truth. It's no wonder that more people die from iatrogenic (induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures). In 2004, the death rate of 783,936 was reported from this problem. It is further disturbing to realize that as few as 5 percent and only up to 20 percent of iatrogenic acts are ever reported. This means that that iatrogenic death rate of 783,936 is most likely much higher. That is more deaths attributed to these iatrogenic acts than any one major disease in America today. Not very good statistics to hang the name of science on is it. EDIT: Why go to hospitals? We are living in very difficult times because our leaders and professional people have decided to put profit and power before health. Treating the sick used to be a noble profession, but the lawyers and politicians have changed all that. Doctors are really caught in the middle and for anyone to be a doctor in today's world, they have to become very defensive in so many ways. Hospitals are not as careful as they used to be in regard to sanitary practices. I hear this all the time from Ombudsmen, nurses, and some doctor friends. Hospitals are full of sick people and lots of germs. Doctors are overwhelmed with too many patients and not enough time. My girlfriend is a court reporter that has taken depositions of witnesses, doctors, expert witnesses for medical malpractice for over 20 years. She deals with the problems of the medical industry each day. The problems are not just bad, but grossly bad and it is obvious there are more "c" students than "A" students who became doctors. When you add the problems with drug companies to this formula, you get a terrible picture of what is happening. The medical industry would have you believe that there is tremendous science at work and people are getting well and living longer. That is simply NOT TRUE. In 1905, the CDC reported that less than 5% of ALL Americans were chronically ill. In 2005, the same CDC reported that over 53% of ALL Americans are now chronically ill. That my friend, is NOT progress by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, fancy diagnostic tools and widgets are in play, but the truth is that our health has deteriorated and the way allopathic medicine is being practiced is NOT working. 25% of ALL Americans either are pre-diabetic or have diabetes. The answer being proposed and followed is to treat it with medicine. This makes for a lifetime of medicine and that is "MAKE BELIEVE HEALTH." There simply is NO MONEY in making people healthy. Treating sicknesses is very profitable. I know of no company on earth that is working to eliminate their market. That is corporate suicide. So why do people actually believe modern medicine is trying to do that or drug companies are actually looking out for our health and striving to develop drugs to make us healthy? good luck to you

If you have your own answer to the question case study cancer patient, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.