I can't believe how fucked up this is. I would elaborate and sound more intelligent about this, but it's hard to put into words how I feel about the hospital and the person that got "offended". Vaping literally has no smell. It's mostly discreet. Whomever decided to get their panties in a bunch were more concerned with rules and regulations than life.
Marijuana is not going to save this woman's life. It would certainly make it more tolerable and less painful, but it's not going to shrink and destroy the goddamned tumor, and it certainly didn't prevent it. Anyone who thinks she's actually dying as an effect of not being able to smoke is deluded (and make no mistake, that's exactly what the title says). This is an example of pro-legalization propaganda. This implies that the cancer would magically disappear if she was allowed to light up, which is fallacious. People who are on the fence about the issue see things like this, and it makes us look just as bad as the prohibitionists. Of course, I don't expect anyone in this section to actually read my post once they get through the first sentence, let alone think about it for 2 seconds, so go ahead and flame away and tell me how great Ron Paul is.
For all the bad and false talk going around about Marijuana. I applaud them. Now go sit down over there and toke on something and listen to some lounge music. Your past posts ------> smh
Don't antagonize me for being a realist. Being deprived of marijuana is not a death sentence. Being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor is a death sentence. Being deprived of marijuana is an inconvenience, and at worst you can say it's an injustice, but the term "death sentence" is not even in the same ballpark. Again, to say that she is going to die simply because she can't have cannabis is not only illogical, but it's insulting to anyone who has had a family member or loved one die of cancer. People who get the best medical treatment in the world still die of cancer every single day. Suggesting that marijuana is all she needs to survive and beat this is belittling to the grave and serious nature of terminal illness. If she really thinks that all she needs is marijuana, she can move to a medical state and very easily get it. I would guess that she probably knows that cannabis isn't going to save her life, or else she, and anyone else with a single fiber of self-preservation in their body, would have done so by now. You can shake your head at my posts all you want. This is paper-thin propaganda with a hint of fear mongering, and it doesn't help our cause in any way, shape or form to make outrageous claims like "The government is killing this poor old woman because they won't let her get high". I'm looking at facts. If you expect the government to do the same, and take our arguments seriously, you have to do it yourself. Yes, it's a sad story. Yes, I wish it wasn't so. She's not going to be cured by marijuana. Therefore, she's not dying simply because she can't have it. I'm not saying that medical marijuana doesn't have its uses, but "curing brain cancer" isn't one of them, and for that, I'm incredibly sorry. I can wish with every fiber of my being that it could, but it doesn't. It just occurred to me that you said "for all the bad and false talk going around about Marijuana. I applaud them." Ignoring the obvious grammar mistakes, this is what you're saying, just rephrased: "I applaud false statements about the effects of cannabis when they're saying positive things about it". Now I'm shaking my head. How is that any different from its detractors?
Well if the government stopped dosing us with radiation and chemicals, fluoride, silicon and all that shit we wouldn't even have cancer so they are killing her....marijuana use over years could cure the cancer who knows, its been proven marijuana is good at killing tumors so back of fools
I will not "back of". When you have an inoperable brain tumor, you are basically, for all intents and purposes, being told that your life has an expiration date. No amount of marijuana is going to save this woman's life, and for you to sit there, plug your ears, and say "maybe it will, you don't know", is insulting to someone who had to watch one of the biggest influences on their life go through that. And, seriously? I'm pretty sure cancer existed long before the United States government. I know you're really hurt by the fact that pot is illegal, but the Feds didn't invent disease. Edit: She lives in California. She almost definitely has a medical card. She has, presumably, been vaping the entire time she's known that she had cancer. She can do so in the privacy of her own home, which she knows. The entire point of the article is that she didn't seem to realize that you can't smoke up in a PUBLIC HOSPITAL. What did she expect? That they would just be cool with it? She's comparing just not being able to smoke at a hospital to a death sentence. This is outrageous.
Exactly. I simply posted this up to see responses. He's right. It's inoperatable. And as awful as it is, people die. It's just much more real for Angel Raich. Unfortunately, people will see a matter of principle being shit on here, which is that since this hospital does cannabis research, and someone on it's campus 'narked' on her, people will be quite upset, possibly thinking that the hospital is 'two-faced'. I for one am not happy with law conflicts. I face Federal and State law conflicts as an MMJ patient all the time, and have even risked getting ticketed or arrested by federal police, out of simply not knowing, not having the right information, not being educated fully on my rights or responsibilities. Angel Raich will die much earlier than she otherwise would have. There is a possible chance that she could prolong her life with use of MMJ concentrates such as RSO, but that is still not entirely scientifically proven. I am sad for her, but this also shows how extreme both anti-legalization and pro-legalization standpoints are in their remarks and propoganda.
Thank you for posting something that acknowledged both sides of the story, and not just attacking me, even though that would have been the easy thing to do on a marijuana forum. To be clear, I wasn't directing any of my comments toward you, personally, but toward the author of the article.
It happens to everyone. I've seen a lot worse over a lot less on these forums. Hell, we have a lot of reasons to be pissed. This just doesn't happen to be a good example of something to base your anger on, that's all. Again, I really wish this poor lady could have marijuana. I wish anyone who wanted marijuana could have it, especially those who need it. I just felt the need to point out that the article was taking someone with a serious and heartbreaking story, and turning her into little more than a conversation topic based on a poorly thought out attack on the government. To be honest, I'd love to have a chance to talk to Angel Raich and ask her if that was even how she intended her quote to be used, because it surprises me that someone described as a "famous marijuana activist" would actually believe that marijuana could prevent her from dying of a, basically, untreatable cancer.
I think perhaps she was emotional and maybe she meant that if she were not allowed to use MMJ, that she couild die a lot sooner than if she did not use MMJ while fighting this tumor? I would be very upset if I had strong opinions and views about cannabis and cancer, and I would probably say something like that, too. Also, I am not sure where the article came from, I know that my mother sent this. Unfortunately I do not talk to my mom much. The sources could have purposfully took certain bits of information to fuel their own agenda, weigh in on their stance on the issue. This does happen a lot in journalism. Nothing is objective anymore. Even journalists and activists forget to be mindful and to observe.
Vote Ron Paul! Brain tumor surgery, depression and survival We call all agree that Vaping helps depression, of course-but the question is, does relieving depression increase survival, or is there an underlying "depressive personality type" that has some other factor at play which reduces survival regardless of treatment response? Depressive/histrionic personality types often co-exist for those of you who feel the person is over reacting.
I can't say that it would make a lot of sense for a chemical imbalance-based depression to have any influence on cancer treatment. I don't believe there's any sort of link between serotonin levels and cancer growth, but I obviously haven't read every study on the subject. It's been shown that THC shrinks tumors, but when you have a tumor deeply ingrained in brain matter, shrinking it usually just delays the inevitable. Now, the main issue I have with her assertion that not being able to smoke at the hospital is a "death sentence" is that she can still smoke at home. From what the article says (which can be found at the Huffington Post's website), it appears she was just at the hospital for a test. Granted, this can take hours, but it's not as though she's trapped at the hospital for days on end, and in the interim, she could always take painkillers before going to the hospital (her assertion that it's a "death sentence" seems to be based on her belief that the pain threatens her life, and that she has to use cannabis every two hours). For someone who uses marijuana as a pain reliever, and doesn't usually use opiate painkillers, there is much less risk with occasional, one-time use for hospital visits than with the countless people who use opiates on a constant basis. When you look at the facts surrounding her case, it's really hard to not see this as a ploy to get media attention for cannabis users, which is not a bad thing, but the language used is a little strong (Death sentence).
They don't even know if there is any link between serotonin and depression. The Serotonin Theory of Depression Is Collapsing | Psychology Today There is an inflammatory response that occurs with cancer which may cause brain disturbances. Inflammation and Its Discontents: The Role of Cytokines in the Pathophysiology of Major Depression International Union of Pharmacology. XXVII. Cl... [Pharmacol Rev. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI http://literature.cannabisreeducati...esearch_Library/Immune effects/Klein 2000.pdf I'd do eatables in the hospital.
There you go. For some reason the thought didn't even cross my mind. That's the solution to this whole mess, really.
"Raich has lived with her brain tumor for some time, but earlier this year she was diagnosed with radiation necrosis, a complication from radiotherapy. Details are scant, but it appears Raich was at UCSF for tests and was using marijuana via a vaporizer at the Parnassus campus when someone -- a doctor or a pharmacist -- took offense, and told Raich that they'd "call the Feds" unless she stopped using marijuana. "The pharmacist said, you can't use cannabis in this hospital," Raich told the television station. "That's a death sentence." " It's incomprehensible to me how somebody who is fighting for the legality of medical marijuana and pretends to understand the politics behind its illegality, would try to solve her cancer with radiation and other pharmaceutical approaches.
Not really... She still wants to live. As far as modern science is concerned, those are really the only ways to effectively treat brain cancer.
Yes, that is the position of modern science. The same modern science that doesn't recognize the medical benefits of marijuana and says that there is absolutely nothing wrong with aspartame, sucralose, and other artificial ingredients. The same modern science that doesn't see a problem with genetically modified food and the same modern science that describes obesity as a disease and epidemic. The same modern science that is governed by various agencies that are bought and paid for by the pharma industry to eliminate competition and increase their profits. I suggest you read up on this topic before bldindly trusting modern "science". And yes, if I ever have cancer I would opt to not be treated by modern science and would opt for the natural "alternative". I wrote alternative in quotation marks as it isn't a legal alternative in the US given the politics of modern "science".