Cannabidiol (CBD) Reveals Potential for Prevention of Colon Cancer

Colon cancer is the most common cancer afflicting the Western world, with over 100,000 new cases and nearly 50,000 deaths each year in the United States alone. Cancers are generally considered a cellular disease, characterized by unlimited cell proliferation, causing tumors and subsequent metastasis (migration from the tumor). In past studies, CBD, a constituent of medical cannabis called cannabidiol, has already shown many potential benefits in the treatment of cancer as an anti-inflammatory, analgesic, anti-oxidative and neuroprotective agent. In these cases, CBD seems to protect normal cells while attacking those that are diseased. New research shows that CBD shows potential to be a preventative measure against colon cancer.

A recent article from the Journal of Molecular Medicine showed that CBD administered to mice which are predisposed to developing colon cancer, significantly decreased the formation of pre-cancer (tissue aberrance and polyps) and cancer growths (tumors). Additionally, this study showed that CBD induces cell death and inhibits tumor formation in cultured colon cancer cells through a variety of cellular pathways. By exploiting these disease-dependent pathways together, CBD may create an inescapable means of killing off and prohibiting the growth of cancer cells. This is a truly remarkable task for any single molecule — to attack multiple disease pathways while maintaining function in healthy cells. This study strengthens the evidence for CBD’s anti-tumor effects and provides evidence for CBD as a novel preemptive strike against colon cancer.

Brandie M. Cross is a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology Program. She is a recipient of the Thomas J. Kelly Award, specializes in the mechanisms of calcium signaling and transport in the body, and was formerly a professional breakdancer. She is a guest blogger for MPP.

Late last month, the Marijuana Policy Project commissioned Public Policy Polling to survey Rhode Island voter attitudes toward marijuana policy. The results are in, and the numbers indicate that Rhode Islanders from both sides of the aisle are clearly aware that marijuana prohibition is failed policy, and they are ready for change.

A majority of Rhode Islanders appear to be fed up with the current marijuana prohibition. Of the 714 voters polled, 52% would like to see all penalties for personal possession and use of marijuana removed and marijuana treated in a manner similar to alcohol, where it would be taxed, regulated, and sold in state-licensed stores to adults over the age of 21. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the idea received bipartisan support and was backed by 55% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans. Legislation spearheaded by MPP to establish such a system will be introduced in Rhode Island this session.

When Mason-Dixon Polling and Research asked the exact same question in 2008, only 41% of 625 voters surveyed supported regulated legalization of marijuana. That’s an increase of 11 percentage points among all voters in less than three years. The ’08 poll showed majority support among Democrats (52%) but strong opposition among Republican voters, with only 26% supporting and 66% opposing the idea just 33 months ago. This means we’ve seen support more than double among Rhode Island Republicans. So what’s going on here?

Although it may seem odd at first, I’ve long argued that replacing the marijuana prohibition with a legalized and regulated marijuana market is an issue perfectly teed up for true conservatives. Ending the marijuana prohibition, and to a greater extent the “War on Drugs,” would massively decrease the size and scope of the federal government and restore police power to the states. Massive federal programs that consume enormous amounts of tax dollars while failing to reduce use and abuse of marijuana would be dismantled, and the oft complained of “nanny state” – the government telling responsible adult citizens what they can and cannot do – would be whittled away at. But can this enormous increase in support for a regulated marijuana market among Rhode Island Republicans be attributed solely to the respondents tapping into their true conservative cores?

While the questions posed to voters were identical in 2008 and 2012, the polls were conducted by different firms. To see if this could be responsible for some of the increase, I reached out to Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling to get his take. “Automated polls [like the one conducted by PPP] tend to get more honest responses from people about sensitive issues than live interview [polls] like Mason-Dixon conducts. People might not be comfortable telling another human on the line that they think marijuana use should be legal, but they’re fine with pushing a button to express that same opinion.” So there is an argument that some of the increase in support was actually there all along, but it was quiet support. This kind of support may be stifled in part by voters’ reluctance to tell a live human being that they support something that could be perceived as taboo.

But I don’t think the live vs. automated distinction can account for the entire increase, and neither does Mr. Jensen. “I think with the tough economy and all the hard cuts state governments across the country have had to make over the last few years, voters are open to new ways to generate revenue, like legalizing and regulating marijuana use, in a way that they might not have been in more prosperous times.” Faced with the current economy, the typical American voter is given two options: cut popular and necessary programs or raise taxes. Neither of these options seems politically popular for members of either major party. So it shouldn’t be surprising to see people from both sides of the political spectrum supporting a proposal that would raise an untold amount of revenue while keeping intact support for current programs and not raising personal income taxes.

Regardless of the reasoning, it is clear that support for regulated legalization of marijuana is increasing and increasing fast. And this phenomenon is not limited to just Rhode Island.

In October of 2011, Gallup conducted their semi-annual “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?” poll. They have been polling the American public on this question, off and on, since 1969. It is important to note that Gallup does not ask about a regulated market, just if marijuana should be legal. It’s also important to keep in mind that Gallup’s results are based on telephone interviews, so if Tom Jensen is correct, we’d expect that the actual support among the public is some degree higher than the results show. With that in mind, it’s incredibly telling that for the first time since 1969, Gallup found that 50% of the American public agrees that marijuana should be legal while 46% think it should remain illegal. Additionally, plurality support for a regulated and legalized market is found in both Colorado and Washington; both states will be voting on ballot measures asking if marijuana should be legalized and regulated come November.

Whatever the reasons may be, the public at large – and Rhode Island voters in particular – have come around to the idea of regulated legalization of marijuana, and why shouldn’t they? Marijuana is demonstrably safer than alcohol and tobacco – both of which are legal yet regulated. Responsible marijuana legalization and regulation will create entire industries worth of jobs, allow federal and state governments to collected needed revenue from responsible sales, and keep marijuana out of the hands of minors through thorough regulations. We’ve got the public behind us, it’s time the lawmakers open their eyes.

(NOTE: PPP also polled Rhode Island voter attitudes toward Rhode Island’s medical marijuana program and a proposal to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by replacing the criminal penalty with a civil citation. Both of these enjoyed very strong support. Click here for full poll results.)

Last September, after activists brought attention to the fact that New York City is the misdemeanor marijuana arrest capital of the United States despite marijuana being “decriminalized,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly directed the NYPD to respect the rules of “stop and frisk” and not charge those found with marijuana in their possession with a criminal charge unless the marijuana is in plain view or being smoked. New York cops have traditionally gotten around this rule by tricking people being frisked into exposing their marijuana. Research has shown that this ploy is used far more on minorities in New York City, despite higher use rates among whites.

Kelly’s statements were admirable and at first seemed to work. For the first several months, marijuana arrests in the city dropped.

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, however, the total number of marijuana arrests for 2011 is actually greater than the previous year!

How could this be? Was there an explosion in marijuana use in New York City in the last year that led to more arrests? Doubtful.

Did some members of the NYPD simply ignore the Commissioner and carry on with their illegal, racist enforcement tactics? Probably.

Let’s see what Commissioner Kelly had to say:

“The numbers are what they are, based on situations officers encounter in the street,” Kelly said at an unrelated press conference Wednesday. “It’s very difficult to quantify whether or not what’s happening [out there],” he said.

The first sentence does not make a lot of sense and would require a massive increase in the number of people openly using marijuana to explain the arrest numbers.

The second sentence … isn’t even a sentence, much less a statement.

This should come as no surprise by now, but President Obama has once again failed to address questions about the need for marijuana policy reform in a public forum. Once again, this issue was among the most popular, but it seems that after laughter, disagreement, and capitulation, the president’s responses are wearing thin, and the question will no longer be asked or answered.

Last week, the White House asked for people to submit questions to be asked during a Google+ Hangout with the president. As usual, marijuana questions dominated the site. Unfortunately for the majority of Americans who support making marijuana legal, the popularity of this issue no longer matters.

First, NORML’s question was removed for being inappropriate.

Then MPP’s question suffered the same fate.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition spokesperson Stephen Downing submitted a video question that quickly became the second most popular on the site. During the forum, however, the folks at Google decided that the president had already answered their question in previous forums and opted to ignore the people and ask inane questions about midnight snacks and tennis instead.

The White House, of course, had nothing to do with the exclusion of a marijuana reform question (or so they say).

The time has come to demand real answers to these pressing questions, not jokes or simple platitudes. Marijuana prohibition is a failed policy that causes far more harm than good, and alternatives must be seriously discussed in open forums before this juggernaut can do any more damage.

It is time for the president to take this issue seriously.

Vermont was the ninth state to allow seriously ill patients to use marijuana to treat certain illnesses, and now it may become the third to make post-traumatic stress disorder one of those qualifying illnesses. A new bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Masland, would allow patients afflicted with the serious psychological condition from war or other trauma to use medical marijuana without fear of arrest.

There are many people suffering from PTSD who have tried treating their symptoms with marijuana and have found it to be far more effective than the prescription pharmaceuticals they had been directed to use. Unfortunately, there is little scientific research to support their claims, and the federal government recently denied permission to study the potential benefits of marijuana for returning veterans.

If the law passes, Vermont will join New Mexico and Delaware as the only states to allow medical marijuana to be recommended for PTSD out of the 16 states (and the District of Columbia) that permit marijuana treatment for other conditions.

In June 2011, Vermont passed a bill that would regulate the establishment of four non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state.

I am pleased to announce that today is the 17^th anniversary of the founding of the Marijuana Policy Project!

Since our formation in 1995, MPP has worked tirelessly to reform marijuana policies around the country and put an end to the harms caused by marijuana prohibition. It’s been a difficult struggle that does not appear to be getting any easier, but despite powerful opposition, we’ve made great strides. Here are just 17 of the things we’ve helped accomplish in the last 17 years:

June 2011 — The first bill to end federal marijuana prohibition was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Ron Paul, and a handful of other courageous Members of Congress. The “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2012” (H.R. 2306) would treat marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol under federal law and would allow states to determine their own marijuana policies. MPP was instrumental in lobbying support for this bill, which now has 20 co-sponsors in Congress.

May 2011 — The Delaware Legislature passed and Gov. Markell signed SB 17, which will allow qualified, registered patients to obtain three ounces of marijuana every 14 days from state-regulated compassion centers. Initially, one center will be allowed in each of Delaware’s three counties. MPP led the two-year grassroots and lobbying efforts to pass the bill, which is based on MPP’s model bill.

May 2011 — The Vermont Legislature approved S. 17, which will add four non-profit dispensaries to the existing law. MPP played an instrumental role in passing this legislation, including by funding a two-year lobbying effort and helping elect a governor who supports sensible marijuana policies.

April and May 2011 — The Maryland General Assembly approved and Gov. O’Malley signed an affirmative defense bill, removing criminal penalties from qualifying patients who possess up to an ounce of marijuana and establishing a work group to study a more comprehensive law. The bill improves upon a sentencing mitigation bill the legislature enacted in 2003, following four years of lobbying by MPP. MPP also played a leading role in the 2011 victory, including in-person lobbying, working with patients, and testifying before legislative committees.

November 2010 — The Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, a ballot initiative campaign backed by MPP, successfully passed a ballot initiative making the use and possession of medical marijuana legal and establishing approximately 120 non-profit dispensaries around the state. This made Arizona the 15th state (plus the District of Columbia) to adopt a medical marijuana law.

December 2009 — MPP successfully lobbied for the removal of the so-called "Barr Amendment" from the D.C. appropriations bill. MPP led the fight to end Congressional interference, which, for over 10 years, blocked the District of Columbia from implementing a medical marijuana initiative that passed with nearly 70% of the vote. MPP even retained the amendment's namesake, former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, to lobby for the amendment’s removal after he reversed his position in 2007. Following the removal of the amendment, MPP successfully lobbied the District Council to improve the language they were considering to implement the initiative and lobbied the executive branch for reasonable regulations. The regulations' went into effect on April 15, 2011.

November 2009 — The American Medical Association rescinded its previous support of classifying marijuana alongside LSD, PCP, and heroin under federal law. This was the result of nearly three years of behind-the-scenes work, whereby MPP worked with key advocates to persuade lower-level medical associations to bring the issue to the full AMA.

November 2008 — MPP's ballot initiative to remove the threat of arrest and jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana passed overwhelmingly in Massachusetts. The successful initiative — the first statewide decriminalization initiative ever — replaced the threat of arrest and jail with a $100 fine.

November 2008 — Michigan passed MPP's ballot initiative to permit terminally and seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana with their doctors' approval, making Michigan the 13th medical marijuana state and the first in the Midwest.

January 2006 — The Rhode Island Legislature overwhelmingly overrode the governor's veto of MPP's bill to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest — making Rhode Island the 11th state where medical marijuana use, possession, and cultivation is legal. This was the first state medical marijuana law to be enacted over the veto of a governor.

November 2005 — The MPP grants program funded a successful initiative to make the adult possession of up to one ounce of marijuana legal under city ordinances in Denver, Colorado.

November 2004 — MPP funded and ran the campaign that succeeded in passing a statewide medical marijuana initiative in Montana with 62% of the vote — the highest margin of victory for any of the medical marijuana initiatives that had passed in eight states since 1996.

May 2004 — At the conclusion of MPP’s intensive, three-year lobbying campaign, Vermont became the ninth state to enact a medical marijuana law — and only the second state to do so through its legislature, rather than through a ballot initiative.

May 2003 — Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) became the first Republican governor to sign medical marijuana legislation. MPP lobbied the Maryland Legislature for four years to pass the bill, which protects medical marijuana patients from imprisonment.

June 2000 — Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano (D) signed MPP's medical marijuana legislation into law, making Hawaii the first state to pass a medical marijuana law through its legislature, rather than through a ballot initiative.

December 1997 — The American Medical Association's House of Delegates voted to adopt a report that (1) recognized the existence of scientific research showing marijuana's medical value, (2) recommended that doctors and patients should not be punished for discussing marijuana as a treatment option, and (3) urged the federal government to expedite medical marijuana research. MPP worked for months to persuade the AMA to adopt these improvements to a policy that had been fairly hostile to medical marijuana.

April 1995 — The U.S. Sentencing Commission voiced its unanimous approval of an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines, which established shorter sentences for people convicted of cultivating marijuana. MPP was helpful in persuading the commission to vote 7-0 in favor of the penalty reduction, which took effect on November 1, 1995. A subsequent 7-0 vote on September 6 made the change retroactive, resulting in the early release of an estimated 950 federal marijuana prisoners.

For a more complete list of our history, please go here.

MPP is dedicated to continuing the fight to end marijuana prohibition, and we couldn’t do it without the support of our members and passionate activists.

Here are 17 things you can do to help end the government’s war on marijuana users.

Earlier today, Polish lawmaker and philosopher Janusz Palikot announced that he was going to smoke a joint in Parliament to kick off a campaign to make marijuana possession legal in Poland. Right now, police have the choice of arresting people or simply ticketing them for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Palikot wants all penalties removed, and he is willing to walk the walk.

Don’t you wish we had politicians like this in the United States?

This plan did not sit well with fellow MP and speaker Ewa Kopacz, who immediately informed the prosecutor of Palikot’s plan.

That sounds a little more like what we’re used to over here.

The prosecutor’s reaction was also pretty familiar to those who have experienced the workings of marijuana prohibition. Even though the joint that Palikot ended up lighting was not even marijuana but some sort of cannabis incense (hopefully not the synthetic cannabinoids like K2 or Spice we’ve all been hearing so much about), he could be charged simply for talking about smoking real marijuana. Apparently in Poland, it is illegal to advertise or promote the substance, which the prosecutor alleges is what Palikot did today. He could face up to a year in prison for this act of political theater.

This sort of reaction definitely sounds familiar, and it came as no surprise to Palikot:

"I want to condemn the hypocrisy concerning marijuana consumption," Palikot told reporters. "Someone said they would smoke a joint in parliament and the reaction was tantamount to someone announcing a coup d'etat."

Poland is one of several European countries that are reviewing their drug laws and taking steps to soften their marijuana policies. Most recently, lawmakers in Copenhagen, Denmark introduced a bill that would allow for possession and sales of marijuana within certain areas of the city

UPDATE: On Tuesday, an Arizona state court ordered the state to implement the dispensary provisions of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The court also declared three medical marijuana regulations invalid and upheld other challenged regulations. The health department had said the state might wait until September or later to issue dispensary registrations. Hopefully, this means dispensaries will finally be registered by spring.

Today, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) announced she will not re-file her lawsuit questioning the validity of Arizona's medical marijuana program. She also announced that once litigation is resolved challenging the health department rules, her health department will begin issuing dispensary registrations.

Gov. Brewer's announcement follows a January 4 ruling dismissing her lawsuit. Judge Susan Bolton agreed with the ACLU, Department of Justice, and other attorneys, and found that there was no genuine, imminent threat that state employees would be prosecuted. Bolton said that Brewer could re-file if the problems with her complaint were addressed.

The U.S. attorney for Arizona at the time the case was filed, Dennis Burke, sent a letter to the Arizona health department on May 2, 2011 that flew in the face of the Obama Administration's stated policy of not targeting those complying with state medical marijuana laws. Burke's letter said "the [federal] CSA may be vigorously enforced against those individuals and entities who operate large marijuana production facilities" even if they are in compliance with state laws, as well as those who "knowingly facilitate the actions of traffickers." After receiving the letter, Gov. Brewer directed Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne to file the litigation requesting clarity, even though Burke told media outlets that his office would not target state employees.

Today, Gov. Brewer wrote the acting U.S. attorney for Arizona, Ann Birmingham Scheel, noting her plans to finally move forward. Brewer requested clarification as to whether there are any activities state employees should not engage in and said "the Department of Justice and the administration which you serve will have a lot of explaining to do to the citizens of our country, and State of Arizona employees in particular, if the State's reasonable and straightforward requests for clarity are ignored, and the Department of Justice then ambushes State employees with prosecution or civil penalties for implementing the AMMA and licensing medical marijuana dispensaries."

Now, only one governor is stubbornly refusing to move forward with implementing a duly enacted medical marijuana dispensary program: Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) of Rhode Island. Here’s hoping he finally sees the light.

A study released by the American Medical Association is getting a whole lot of attention this week, as it rightly should. This study, which shows that people who smoke marijuana exhibit little to no harmful pulmonary effects from their use, pokes a gigantic, gaping hole in one of the most often-employed attacks against marijuana reform.

According to the 20-year study, those who used marijuana occasionally (2-3 times a month) did not show any decrease in lung functioning and, in some cases, actually showed improvements. This is in glaring contrast to cigarette smokers, who displayed significantly less breathing ability at the end of the study. Even some heavy marijuana users showed no decrease in function.

Of course, this is antithetical to what prohibitionists and scaremongers have been claiming about marijuana for decades. One of the most commonly used arguments against marijuana reform is that it is too dangerous to be used as a medicine because of the lung damage caused by smoking (even though many patients prefer vaporizing or eating their medicine). By this logic, making marijuana legal for recreational use is out of the question because of the threat to public health and the associated costs that would be incurred.

The American Medical Association just invalidated that argument. This is the latest in what appears to be a trend of science exposing the lies in the major prohibitionist talking points.

Take teen use, for example. The drug czar has repeatedly tried to blame medical marijuana and reformers on the increase in teen marijuana use, saying that it “sends the wrong message” to young people. By looking at the available data for medical marijuana states, however, MPP was able to show that in most of those states, teen use actually decreased after the implementation of medical marijuana laws. It appears that the message reformers are sending teens is that marijuana is not as glamorous when being used by a cancer patient. That is quite a bit better than the message being sent by the government, which is that teens cannot handle hearing legitimate policy debates and that it is worth lying to them and arresting them to stop others from using marijuana in the future (a tactic we can see has failed by comparing our continuously high arrest rates with the increasing rate of teen and adult use).

Another point, brought up most often by law enforcement, is that if more people are using marijuana, the roads will become more dangerous. They conjure images of stoned drivers and bloodstained pavement and complain about lack of effective tools by which to judge marijuana impairment. This argument was similarly refuted by a recent study that showed traffic fatalities also decreased in states that allowed the medical use of marijuana. Apparently, access to marijuana leads to a drop in alcohol sales, particularly among people who may self-medicate with alcohol for painful conditions. This, combined with the fact that driving while under the influence of marijuana is far safer (yet still potentially dangerous; no one should drive impaired on any substance), leads to a marked decrease in fatal car accidents.

(As a side note, there is a time-tested and proven way of determining impairment caused by any substance or condition. It is called Standardized Field Sobriety Testing and has been in use since there have been cars on the roads. In recent years, this tool has become much more accurate through research and increased training protocols.)

The vast majority of arguments against reform tend to be based on emotion. They have little to do with facts. As more and more research becomes available that disproves the propaganda, hopefully more people will see through the smokescreen of lies and fear. When they do, our nation will make great strides toward enacting rational marijuana policies.

No family should have to deal with the consequences of the events that occurred in Ogden, Utah on January 3, 2012. So it is with great respect to the families of both Jared Francom and Matthew David Stewart, who no doubt are both dealing with incredible grief of contrasting nature, that I’m offering up these comments.

Whenever a member of law enforcement is killed in the line of duty, like Officer Jared Francom recently was, it’s a tragedy. When the “target” of the military tactical style operation that led to the shootout leaving the officer dead appears to have been a personal marijuana grow, it’s also infuriating.

At 8:40 p.m. on Wednesday, January 3, 2012, members of the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force in Ogden, Utah conducted a “knock and enter” warrant on the home of 37 year-old army veteran Matthew David Stewart. According to reports, they knocked and no one answered. When they forcefully entered his home in paramilitary style gear, with guns drawn, they encountered gunfire. When it was all said and done, one member of the task force was fatally injured, five members were wounded, Stewart was injured and faces likely charges of aggravated murder (which carries the death penalty) and multiple counts of attempted aggravated murder.

According to DEA Special Agent in Charge Frank Smith, the victims and other agents involved in this operation are heroes, and they were “protecting the public.” I tend to agree with Agent Smith, members of the task force are heroes, but in this instance, they certainly were not protecting the public.

The only public reports about why Stewart was raided indicate that Stewart had a personal, indoor marijuana grow for medical reasons. It’s been reported that Stewart suffers from PTSD and grew a small amount of marijuana to self-medicate. In addition, it has been speculated that the reason why Stewart failed to answer the knock is because he was asleep at the time. He worked the midnight shift and would typically be asleep at the time the raid was conducted.

So, it seems an army veteran who suffers from PTSD was suddenly awoken to armor-clad armed men in his home and he allegedly opened fire. The army vet now likely faces the death penalty. One officer is dead. Five wounded. Countless lives have been ruined.

I’d like Agent Smith to explain to Stewart exactly why he was a threat to the public. There has been no allegation that Steward sold marijuana, or gave it away to kids, or that he was a danger to anyone before the paramilitary-style raid on his house. In fact, his neighbors were shocked to learn that there was any drug activity in the area, dispelling the notion that Stewart was an immediate threat to anyone. Without making a fuss and without causing problems in his neighborhood, Stewart simply grew marijuana for personal medical reasons.

I’d also like Agent Smith to explain to Officer Francom’s family why Stewart’s personal medical grow warranted the over-the-top means of enforcement that has been linked to so many needless deaths and injuries.

Finally, I’d like Agent Smith to explain to everyone why — as he stated to Fox 13 News — this situation isn’t a legalization issue? Clearly, the officers involved were just doing their job. They were enforcing enacted laws that their superiors wanted enforced. However, if marijuana were legal, this and numerous other prohibition-related deaths, including the death of another Utah man at the hands of this very same task force, would never have happened.

So long as marijuana remains a law enforcement issue as opposed to a public health issue, we’ll keep seeing tragic stories like these. Officers and civilians shot, and often times killed, over a naturally occurring plant that is safer than alcohol. It’s sad and it’s sickening, and it’s about time that we finally rethink our nation’s devastating marijuana prohibition.