Feb 1, 2016

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/ 



Jan 25, 2016

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.

Mar 6, 2014

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

Feb 2, 2014

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/ 

Jan 29, 2014

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/

Dec 20, 2013

Manipulating Marijuana: Monsanto and Syngenta Invest In RNA Interference Technology

By Tracy Giesz-Ramsay, Cannabis Culture - Tuesday, July 30 2013

FOLLOW: GENETIC MODIFICATION GROWING MONSANTO CANNABIS CULTURE - 

Having been cultivated and used ceremonially, recreationally and medicinally for thousands of years, cannabis – despite prohibitive laws surrounding the non-medicinal use of the plant – is undoubtedly on the radar of big agribusiness.

These companies would certainly turn a profit from developing a patentable transgenic seed for sole distribution if the use of cannabis were to become legal. It would be easy for these companies to create a monopoly over the industry by abusing their ties with federal regulators. This has all been a point of much debate within the cannabis community for many years.
With this in mind, it's fair to say that one of the only positives of marijuana prohibition, with the art of breeding, growing and distributing cannabis heavily underground for most of its commercial history, the Big 6 seed and chemical companies have not been able to dominate the industry with their patented technologies.



The trouble: things may change soon. Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer, Dow and DuPont have, until recently, largely focused their energy on monopolizing the food industry, but some have developed a keen interest in this still-illegal plant as well.
Whether the backwards idea of keeping psychoactive plants entirely prohibited continues, or whether full legalization is granted, or simply if only medicinal liberties remain the loophole on marijuana use, these companies are seeking new and preparatory ways to cash-in on the popular use of cannabis.

With bureaucratic regulation of medicinal use of the plant being discussed in the halls of government and on its way to becoming the standard, many agro-companies are set to be outsourced as the main providers of medicinal pot. For obvious reasons then, these companies are already underway researching genetically modified (GM) cannabis in order to control its THC content.
If these corporations are given sole administrative power of seed distribution to the licensed medicinal outlets, they may want to keep THC at very low concentrations of 3 to 5%. On the contrary, if by retract of the recent medicinal freedom, pot becomes entirely prohibited once again, they can still benefit by joining hands with the champions of the drug war and eradicating THC content in the plant entirely.



THC: Potency the Natural Way

THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, one of the psychoactive components in marijuana, has always been the subject of artful breeding. Without GM technology, experienced growers have perfected ancient methods of breeding organic cannabis with around 10% or more THC. By use of a natural cultivation process called human selection – a sped up form of natural selection – marijuana growers have been learning how to increase THC content without the use of any lab or corporate product.
This has enabled the marijuana world to maintain independence from the massive seed and chemical companies.

Of course, deep knowledge of the plant, extensive farming practices, genuine care and time spent in order to learn how to breed this useful plant, are a must for growers who want to deliver a truly organic, naturally cultivated and increasingly potent product.
In North America, British Columbia has been a place of highly concentrated talent – growers from all over the world come to the Northwest to take advantage of its nutrient-rich soil, prime weather conditions, and historically lax laws to learn how to grow potent marijuana, learning the best techniques to breed a product with a high THC content.



The concentration of organic-friendly farmers and environmentally concerned activists in the area have been a bonus to growers who, like tomato and arugula cultivators, learn from each other using permaculture-based methods (to ward off pests naturally without pesticides or BT technology, for instance) and thereby nurture prime conditions for growing successful healthy crops.
With the demand for potent BC Bud always increasing, of course there will be those attracted to growing with purely profit-driven motives. Rather than take the time and patience to learn true farming practices, some unexperienced growers will look to chemical companies to help increase their crop yields.

GM cannabis has already been developed for purely pharmaceutical use and to license to the government for medicinal study in laboratories. At the same time, over the last ten years, the realization that these chemicals and genetically modified versions of our ingestible plants could possibly cause major health problems like cancer, has been front and center on the stage of awareness.

Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other advocacy groups have said the risks of GM technologies have not been adequately identified or resolved. Opponents also question the objectivity of regulatory authorities.

The fight against GM food will surely heat up as this awareness increases. With the close-knit relationship between those who enjoy an organic plant-based diet and those who enjoy using marijuana, agribusiness might be safely kept away from cannabis cultivation – just so long as growers who value the true art of growing stick to their ancient practices, and those who are destructively profit-driven are pushed out.
But this will require high levels of consumer awareness. Medicinal patients should also demand their medicinal marijuana doesn't come from the laboratory, but rather, to have experienced organic growers be the government's source for licensed marijuana.

RNA interference

The biggest concern with cannabis and GM control now remains. While they gain a monopoly over medical marijuana, the challenge of governments who continue to wage the ostensible "War on Drugs" is being taken on by some of the Big 6. Monsanto and Syngenta are currently investing millions of dollars into a new GM technology called RNA interference.

RNAi, as it's also known, is a method where the RNA - which is the code from a plant or animal's DNA that tells its proteins how to organize in order to create, say, what colour the plant will be - is interfered with. In RNAi, double-stranded RNA is inserted so that this original code is obstructed; so that the pigmentation instructions don't make it to the proteins.

Scientists in Spain have successfully injected double-stranded RNA into a purple petunia to interfere with the genes that usually tell the flower to turn purple. Where the RNA code translation was interfered with, the flower grew white stripes where the proteins had no information on how to organize in order to create the colouring.



This process initially stepped into development as an alternative to insecticides: if you can insert double-stranded RNA into a plant's seed that is designed to interfere with the offending insect's RNA instructions for, say, digestive capabilities, after ingesting the plant and therefore the RNAi, the pest will no longer be able to eat.

More on this science has been in the works. Testing has already been done creating double-stranded RNA that have been injected into spider mites, the most resilient of crop pests, which interferes with the RNA instructing the mites' proteins on muscle development so the sider mite can no longer move.
The problem with this process is that the transgenic genes intended to interfere with the plant or the pest will then be ingested by the human. No matter how small an amount this gene interference is intended to be, there are scientists raising red flags about the potential harm this could have on our own biological systems or cell and protein development.

GM Cannabis

Here, the potential applications of this technology for the cannabis industry step onto the stage: imagine what genetic instructions within the cannabis plant might be interfered with. Certainly to profit from the billions spent on the Drug War in its attempt to eradicate the world of psychoactive plants, these companies might offer a rendition of this GM technology where genes determining THC content are interfered with.

If it weren't for the growing evidence that GM and RNAi crops may be damaging to humans, it's possible to imagine a host of potential benefits to genetically modifying the cannabis plant. Larger, more potent, and pest-resistent grow shows are an attractive proposition, but are they worth the many risks?

RNAi technology is still in its elementary development stage and they're currently testing methods by which to administer it. A spray that contains this double-stranded RNAi technology, is thought to be the most marketable, but in Spain, injecting RNAi directly into the seed has been the focus of their extensive research. Another step before making it to the market is the question of how to regulate it for food-safety and health risks.

Developers of RNAi technology estimate that it could take 5 to 10 years to bring the technology up to code, so there is still time to help support and empower organic growers and non-GM cultivators.
Canada will soon employ a new commercial medical marijuana production system, where large-scale producers will be permitted to grow cannabis and distribute it through the mail. If you have a licence to purchase cannabis for medicinal use in Canada, tell Health Canada to you will not accept a product that has been interfered with using GM or RNAi technology.

In the United States, it could be a long while before the federal government allows any kind of research and development into GM cannabis, let alone any kind of sales or distribution for medical or recreational purposes, but things are moving quickly at the state level.

The slogan "Know Your Farmer" has gained popularity over the years in enlightened agricultural circles. In order to save our most ancient and beloved psychoactive plants from falling into the hands and under the control of the agri-chem profiteers, let everyone remember the slogan "Know Your Grower."

Hard work, pure talent, and unparalleled dedication to the natural world will continue to deliver us both our health and our freedom.

Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2013/07/30/Manipulating-Marijuana-Monsanto-and-Syngenta-Invest-RNA-Interference-Technology