Hemp? The most valuable plant is illegal in America

[Georg]

Marinol is used quite well for glaucoma. As an anti-nausea drug, it works well. Otherwise, it hasn't done so well in clinical trials, relegating it to the non medical CAM market. There may be some interesting THC analogs that may be very useful in weight control, both to gain or lose weight, and they are being tested currently.

Some more research already has been and still is being done. Here you can find some results, collected by this organisation:

International Association for Cannabis as Medicine
The International Association for Cannabis as Medicine (IACM) was founded in March 2000. It is a scientific society advocating the improvement of the legal situation for the use of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa L.) and its pharmacologically most important active compounds, the cannabinoids, for therapeutic applications through promotion of research and dissemination of information. The IACM declares that it is the right of doctors to be able to discuss the medicinal use of cannabis with their patients.

But here is where we go down the rabbit hole and start mixing conspiracy theories into a woo smoothie. I'm not even going to bother with this junk.

I would not dismiss it completely before looking at some evidence:

snip

DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and hemp

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[21] reports[22] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[23]

Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp had been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont's profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[24]

snip

from wiki.


Not necessarily completely true, but not necessarily completely bunk either. Sometimes conspiracies do happen, and anyone that has seen "reefer madness" knows that the discussion has not always been fact-based.

Disclaimer: I´m a potsmoker since about 25 years and would like to see it legalized, loads of people rotting in jail for smoking the funny stuff makes no sense for me.
That is no reason to glorify every aspect of hemp though and to swallow everything positively told about it (I admit being guilty of this behaviour in the past, but do my best to learn. I love this forum ).

 

[kookbreaker]

I would not dismiss it completely before looking at some evidence:

To be blunt, the 'evidence' stems from Herer's book, which is a load of crap

Look at this:

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[21] reports[22] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst,

As has been pointed out, almost ALL newspapers were printing articles condemning Marijuana. As Cecil Adams points out there were articles in the New Yorker!

who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[23]

Which is crap corellation. Hemp wasn't being used to make paper, wasn't about to used for paper, and still isn't a factor in paper making despite being legal in countries that make their own paper. Hearst had no reason to consider Hemp to be a threat to anything.

Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp.

Which means absolutely nothing.

If hemp had been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon),

Here is where Herer is full of it, and pulls crap out of his ***. Hemp was never going to compete as a plastic, and as I noted already it was a pretty dark horse in the paper industry. Herer is holding up a 'magic Hemp' idea where somehow a crop almost abandoned by the time it was banned was somehow going to turn instantly into a crop that would provide everything for everybody...if only you could get around that 'its useless or second best for evertying' issue.

and may have hurt DuPont's profits.

Wasn't going to happen. Hemp will never be nylon. Ever. Herer primary 'evidence' for Hemp being an obvious threat to industries was based off an article about Hemp in Popular Mechanics, and trying to adopt Henry Ford's mania for soy into hemp. The Pop Mech article was 'optimistic' to put it lightly, and like many other 'this could be great some day' articles has a great chance of being wrong. Ask Popular Mechanics about Rolamite someday.

Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[24]

This is little more than 'he knew somebody' crap.

 

[Ambrosia]

I've heard the same perfect protein line for eggs, soy and whey, occasionally others. There really is no such thing as a purest protein or healthiest protein. Also, the omega fatty acids aren't as super-incredible as they have been promoted by big food and big supplements.

Protein is scored on the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) by the FDA and also the WHO.

The *only* vegetable source to get a perfect score(1.0) is soy protein isolate, the others are milk, whey (derived from milk), casein (also derived from milk) and egg white.

Soy itself untreated comes in with a score of 0.92

Hemp comes in at less than 0.5

While you can argue that there is such a thing as "perfect protein" given that the digestion of food is incredibly complex and the PDCAAS scale is limited in usefulness, how you'd go about determining what that is is unsure.

It's pretty certain that protein from Hemp seed is most definitely not it though , Hemp is rated pretty poorly, see here ... [enerex . ca/articles/soy_protein%20V_hemp_protein.htm]

Hemp protein is deficient in 5 of the essential amino acids as compared to the FAO/WHO with tryptophan being the limiting amino acid. Hemp will not meet the minimum protein requirements for 2-5 year olds.

Of course Cannabis should be legalised, imo all drugs should be legalised, regulated and taxed, and the money spent on the useless war on drugs ought to be spent on educating the public honestly about the dangers involved, and on programs to help people with drug addictions to recover from them.

I do wonder how far the tax revenue lost to the treasury would go in paying off some of the staggering amount of debt we seem to have these days, allowing for a portion of it to used in administrating the new regulating stuff.

Oh and I recently rewatched the Penn & Teller BS! episode on "The War on Drugs" - highly recommended viewing, wherein you discover that the US Federal govt. supplies (at the time the film was made) 7 individuals within the US with weed , at the same time as imprisoning people for using weed.

Crazy.

 

[thomowen20]

While there is no proof either way, I think that there is enough EVIDENCE of cytolitic, apoptic and inhibitor activity in various cancer cells in in-vitro and in animal studies (in vitro and invivo) to advance to further study of endocannabanoid:

Google terms Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy Maurizio Bifulco,1,* Chiara Laezza,2 Simona Pisanti,1 and Patrizia Gazzerro1 (Sorry you will have to Google those terms copy and paste style to save time. I cannot post links yet being a new member.)



The first part of this paper deals with therapeutic aspects such as anti-emetic and analgesic aspects. If you scroll down to the mid-sections of the paper you will find studies implicating the endocannabanoid system with anti-cancerial, antitumor and anti-proliferative activity.

The paper has both inline and footnote citations of various clinical studies.

The anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of hemp-oil and other sources of cannabanoids is considerable. Having stated that, the strengths and weaknesses of anecdotal evidence is well understood in terms of isolation of confounds, bias types and its importance with regard to number, accuracy and the difficulties inherent in proper rendition.

So at this point, I would say that BOTH the anecdotal AND indication of mechanism (indicated in the paper) lend strength in number and quality to investigating this further. I would recommend peer reviewed clinical trials on humans using the hemp oil (and other cannabanoid based synthetics, partials and derivatives) using strict controls, double blind and subjected to meta-analysis by peer review. Unfortunately, what I recommend is not often what is.

 

[BazBear]

Wow, this thread had a long hibernation.

Hemp and marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. The free market will decide if hemp is suitable as a fiber for anything but the niche market (doesn't sound promising though). Law enforcement can reallocate what are IMO wasted resources to more serious problems. It would also lighten the burden on the corrections systems.

 

[kookbreaker]

/loads shotgun to shoot zombie thread in the head

 

[Sledge]

I want to keep hemp and marijuana illegal just to annoy potheads.

 

[Mudcat]

/loads shotgun to shoot zombie thread in the head

/prepares fire to burn the corpse.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I want to keep hemp and marijuana illegal just to annoy potheads.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

While there is no proof either way, I think that there is enough EVIDENCE of cytolitic, apoptic and inhibitor activity in various cancer cells in in-vitro and in animal studies (in vitro and invivo) to advance to further study of endocannabanoid:

Google terms Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy Maurizio Bifulco,1,* Chiara Laezza,2 Simona Pisanti,1 and Patrizia Gazzerro1 (Sorry you will have to Google those terms copy and paste style to save time. I cannot post links yet being a new member.)



The first part of this paper deals with therapeutic aspects such as anti-emetic and analgesic aspects. If you scroll down to the mid-sections of the paper you will find studies implicating the endocannabanoid system with anti-cancerial, antitumor and anti-proliferative activity.

The paper has both inline and footnote citations of various clinical studies.

The anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of hemp-oil and other sources of cannabanoids is considerable. Having stated that, the strengths and weaknesses of anecdotal evidence is well understood in terms of isolation of confounds, bias types and its importance with regard to number, accuracy and the difficulties inherent in proper rendition.

So at this point, I would say that BOTH the anecdotal AND indication of mechanism (indicated in the paper) lend strength in number and quality to investigating this further. I would recommend peer reviewed clinical trials on humans using the hemp oil (and other cannabanoid based synthetics, partials and derivatives) using strict controls, double blind and subjected to meta-analysis by peer review. Unfortunately, what I recommend is not often what is.

Fine. Let's go further. Let's identify the specific compounds that have the beneficial effects, extract, then learn how to synthesize them, and distribute that/those as prescriptions instead of simply falling back on prescribing hemp oil. After all, it's not like we give foxglove (digitalis), nightshade (atropine) or pacific yew (Taxol) to patients, we only give the compound which has a demonstrable effect. So this way, we actually isolate the effective part of the treatment and at the same time avoid worrying about all the social stuff and not have to waste energy and effort on hemp advocacy since that would be bypassed. It's win-win all around. And I'm certain people making these arguments would not mind bypassing hemp legalization in exchage for effectiveness, since their arguments so clearly illustrate that they could care less about pot and drug use and are actually worrying about medical care for mankind. Right?

 

[LSSBB]

Fine. Let's go further. Let's identify the specific compounds that have the beneficial effects, extract, then learn how to synthesize them, and distribute that/those as prescriptions instead of simply falling back on prescribing hemp oil. After all, it's not like we give foxglove (digitalis), nightshade (atropine) or pacific yew (Taxol) to patients, we only give the compound which has a demonstrable effect. So this way, we actually isolate the effective part of the treatment and at the same time avoid worrying about all the social stuff and not have to waste energy and effort on hemp advocacy since that would be bypassed. It's win-win all around. And I'm certain people making these arguments would not mind bypassing hemp legalization in exchage for effectiveness, since their arguments so clearly illustrate that they could care less about pot and drug use and are actually worrying about medical care for mankind. Right?

I don't feel up to Googling it, and it would kinda look funny to do it on a work computer, however I saw a program on legalization where NORML had a symposium in Denver and there was a presentation on extracting beneficial material from hemp, so looks like they are making steps in that direction.

 

[Scorps]

While there is no proof either way, I think that there is enough EVIDENCE of cytolitic, apoptic and inhibitor activity in various cancer cells in in-vitro and in animal studies (in vitro and invivo) to advance to further study of endocannabanoid:

Google terms Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy Maurizio Bifulco,1,* Chiara Laezza,2 Simona Pisanti,1 and Patrizia Gazzerro1 (Sorry you will have to Google those terms copy and paste style to save time. I cannot post links yet being a new member.)



The first part of this paper deals with therapeutic aspects such as anti-emetic and analgesic aspects. If you scroll down to the mid-sections of the paper you will find studies implicating the endocannabanoid system with anti-cancerial, antitumor and anti-proliferative activity.

The paper has both inline and footnote citations of various clinical studies.

The anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of hemp-oil and other sources of cannabanoids is considerable. Having stated that, the strengths and weaknesses of anecdotal evidence is well understood in terms of isolation of confounds, bias types and its importance with regard to number, accuracy and the difficulties inherent in proper rendition.

So at this point, I would say that BOTH the anecdotal AND indication of mechanism (indicated in the paper) lend strength in number and quality to investigating this further. I would recommend peer reviewed clinical trials on humans using the hemp oil (and other cannabanoid based synthetics, partials and derivatives) using strict controls, double blind and subjected to meta-analysis by peer review. Unfortunately, what I recommend is not often what is.

Dr Lester Grinspoon, who is - broadly speaking - a medical cannabis advocate, neatly puts his finger on the issues with anecdotal evidence from Simpson's quarter:

'Simpson, who does not have a medical or scientific education (he dropped out of school in ninth grade) apparently does not require that a candidate for his treatment have an established diagnosis of a specific type of cancer, usually achieved through biopsy, gross and histopathological examinations, radiologic and chemical laboratory evidence. He apparently accepts the word of his "patients". Furthermore, after he has given the course of "hemp-oil" there is apparently no clinical or laboratory follow up; he apparently accepts the "patient's" belief that he has been cured. According to Hager, he claims a cure rate of 70%. But 70% of what? Do all the people he treats with hemp-oil medicine have medically established, well-documented cancer, or is he treating the symptoms or a constellation of symptoms that he or the patient have concluded signify the existence of cancer? And what is the nature and duration of the follow-up which would allow him to conclude that he has cured 70%? Furthermore, does this population of "patients with cancer" include those who have already had therapeutic regimes (such as surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy) which are known to be successful in curing some cancers or holding at bay, sometimes for long periods of time, many others?'

- 'Medical Marijuana: A Note of Caution' - Dr Lester Grinspoon in response to 'Rick Simpson's Medicine Oil' - Steve Hager, High Times January 2010


Furthermore, Simpson admits on the Phoenix Tears website that he receives complaints - prima facie we can take this as evidence of the existence of negative anecdotal evidence.

 

[Scorps]

I would very much like to see human clinical trials -beyond gauging drug safety- either assessing ingestion of hemp oil or assessing synthetic cannabinoid-based drug maneuvres. I can only second guess why, broadly speaking, this is not currently happening - we are simply not at the stage with any synthetic derivative yet to do so.

It is a horribly complex issue, & it's very easy to see why individuals are so eager to avoid the more caustic mainstream regimens, or out of desperation for terminal patients to turn to such an appealing 'alternative'. But the current literature is being wildly extrapolated to support an intervention that is not currently supportable on an objective assessment of the evidence.

 

[Supernaut]

just a note to say that adding hemp to any recipe pretty much makes it taste like ass.

ETA: and having met Shemp (and his goats) I know from whence I speak. Argument from authority? Sure. Lick Shemp's goats and see for yourself.

Cold-pressed hemp-seed oil is abso-*******-lutely delicious, in fact no other seed oil comes close, nor are they as good for you.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

ETA >> hemp is cultivated in the UK (in the South West where it's just about warm enough) and the oil is readily available in any supermarket, the brand-leader is "Good Oil". I've never been without a bottle of it for a few years.

Herby scrambled eggs on hemp-oil toast rules!

 

[JayUtah]

As we discussed in a similar thread recently, the countries that have legalized the cultivation of hemp for its various purported valuable uses have found it simply isn't nearly as valuable as other cash crops they could be cultivating. Its medicinal value is on par with other available substances. Its fiber value is far surpassed by more modern fibers that have been developed since hemp was cultivated for that purpose. Hence it simply cannot be styled as "the most valuable plant." The data show otherwise.

The medical-use and commercial-use arguments have long been suspected, and often subsequently revealed, to be proxies for the recreational-use argument. There is some validity to them, but less than that claimed by hemp advocates. Now that a handful of states have accepted the recreational-use argument, I believe it's time to let those proxy arguments die a natural death.

There may be helpful commercial uses for hemp, but we should let the market decide that. There may be helpful medicinal uses, but whether to obtain that aid from the natural plant or from purified extracts simply devolves to the natural-source v. synthesis argument. Recreational use among responsible adults is less than pariah than it used to be, and should take its place as a legitimate way to argue for decriminalizing it.

 

[Blender Head]

Dr Lester Grinspoon, who is - broadly speaking - a medical cannabis advocate, neatly puts his finger on the issues with anecdotal evidence from Simpson's quarter:

'Simpson, who does not have a medical or scientific education (he dropped out of school in ninth grade) apparently does not require that a candidate for his treatment have an established diagnosis of a specific type of cancer, usually achieved through biopsy, gross and histopathological examinations, radiologic and chemical laboratory evidence. He apparently accepts the word of his "patients". Furthermore, after he has given the course of "hemp-oil" there is apparently no clinical or laboratory follow up; he apparently accepts the "patient's" belief that he has been cured. According to Hager, he claims a cure rate of 70%. But 70% of what? Do all the people he treats with hemp-oil medicine have medically established, well-documented cancer, or is he treating the symptoms or a constellation of symptoms that he or the patient have concluded signify the existence of cancer? And what is the nature and duration of the follow-up which would allow him to conclude that he has cured 70%? Furthermore, does this population of "patients with cancer" include those who have already had therapeutic regimes (such as surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy) which are known to be successful in curing some cancers or holding at bay, sometimes for long periods of time, many others?'

- 'Medical Marijuana: A Note of Caution' - Dr Lester Grinspoon in response to 'Rick Simpson's Medicine Oil' - Steve Hager, High Times January 2010


Furthermore, Simpson admits on the Phoenix Tears website that he receives complaints - prima facie we can take this as evidence of the existence of negative anecdotal evidence.

Apparently Lester Grinspoon likes to apparently use the word 'apparently' a lot, apparently.

 

[thomowen20]

All valid points concerning anecdotal evidence weaknesses. The concerns you cite with the evidence here is under what I consider matters confounding or of recordkeeping. I actually remember reading of a case where a woman was receiving the hemp oil and had some sort of liver cancer and how well it was working, only to read at the end that she was taking herself off of the chemo she was ALSO undergoing. That is an example of a confound for sure. Needless to say this warranted a face-palm at having wasted my time reading this case.

As far as making sure givers of anecdotal have the condition they say they do, you could argue that Simpson does not have the time or resources to verify these thing, BUT he is giving medical advice and should either step up his verification efforts or become more strident and clear with his disclaimer. Clarity goes hand in hand with honesty and integrity. I have noticed the the Phoenix Tears website is nowhere near as clear with disclaimers as it should be. Simpson, I think we could agree, needs to take greater responsibilty for his content and conclusions.

Finally, I would say that anecdotal evidence is never a sound basis for anything by itself. Anecdotal evidence at best can only lend support or opposition in concert with peer-reviewed and properly studied proof of concept pathways (such as is present with the hemp oil constituents and endocannababoid studies I referenced.) and empirical evidence.

 

[thomowen20]

Agreed and well put!

 

[thomowen20]

Fine. Let's go further. Let's identify the specific compounds that have the beneficial effects, extract, then learn how to synthesize them, and distribute that/those as prescriptions instead of simply falling back on prescribing hemp oil. After all, it's not like we give foxglove (digitalis), nightshade (atropine) or pacific yew (Taxol) to patients, we only give the compound which has a demonstrable effect. So this way, we actually isolate the effective part of the treatment and at the same time avoid worrying about all the social stuff and not have to waste energy and effort on hemp advocacy since that would be bypassed. It's win-win all around. And I'm certain people making these arguments would not mind bypassing hemp legalization in exchage for effectiveness, since their arguments so clearly illustrate that they could care less about pot and drug use and are actually worrying about medical care for mankind. Right?

I'm right with you there and this would give companies incentive to pursue and put money into studies. A necessary consideration where money and the current form of profit trump human well-being.

Personally, I could care less about the pharma companies, if the current way of things also means that we get more precise treatment regimens in the end. More precise treatments would be a good consolation, I guess, in a world where the stultifying effects of the profit motive are manifest.

 

[thomowen20]

I would very much like to see human clinical trials -beyond gauging drug safety- either assessing ingestion of hemp oil or assessing synthetic cannabinoid-based drug maneuvres. I can only second guess why, broadly speaking, this is not currently happening - we are simply not at the stage with any synthetic derivative yet to do so.

It is a horribly complex issue, & it's very easy to see why individuals are so eager to avoid the more caustic mainstream regimens, or out of desperation for terminal patients to turn to such an appealing 'alternative'. But the current literature is being wildly extrapolated to support an intervention that is not currently supportable on an objective assessment of the evidence.

Agreed. We NEED to get those human trials going and see what we can and can not do with this. We need to refine the mechanisms and determine what does what with good confidence, as other posters have stated, to refine the treatment.

I was thinking, there have to be some freshly minted post-docs out there that want to get something good published, AND a lot of post-grad students in need of material for a thesis, AND a lot profs who should be writing grant proposals...