1974 STUDY EXPLAINS HOW CANNABIS KILLS CANCER CELLS

By Steve Kubby
Source: medicalmarijuana411.com

Yes, you read that right. The study was done in 1974, 46 years ago.

"However, there really is massive proof that the

suppression of medical cannabis represents the

greatest failure of the institutions of a free society,

medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,”

The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals.

They do so by modulating key cell-signaling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumor.

The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo , a neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis:

“Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodeling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death.

That process fails to work in tumors. THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias, melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die.”

“But, that is not all,” explains Dr. Russo: “The other way that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly incredible, and elegant.”

In other words, this article explains several ways in which cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the article says, “Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.

Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a “cancer cure” – however remote in the future and improbable in fact it might be.

But if marijuana is involved, don’t expect any coverage from mainstream media, especially since mainstream editors have been quietly killing this story for the past thirty years.

That’s right, news about the ability of pot to shrink tumors first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice — lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study — in the “Local” section — on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, “Cancer Curb Is Studied,” it read in part: “The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered.” The researchers “found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

“News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article,” complained MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan, who said he was only able to find the article through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. “The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors,” added Cowan.

On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a carefully researched, bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing titled, “POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN ’74.” Media coverage since then has been nonexistant, except for a copy of the story on Alternet .

It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be used to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty years , yet it seems likely that it will continue to be suppressed. Why?

According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition . “If this article and its predecessors from 2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression of medical cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to rationalize it in some herniated way. However, there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,” Cowan notes.

Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many cases, familes exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic and expensive drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize that while marijuana has never killed anyone, marijuana prohibition has killed millions.

Canadian and Spanish hemp companies team up to distribute CBG in Canada

By Hemp Industry Daily
Source: hempindustrydaily.com



A Canadian biotechnology hemp company is entering an agreement with a Spanish company to produce and distribute a THC-free, high -CBG variety of the plant in Canada.

Ottawa-based Cannabis Orchards’ partnership with Hemp Trading to get the hemp variety, called Panakeia, into the Canadian market comes after “successful distribution” of it in the United States, the company told Hemp Industry Daily.

 

CBG is part of a group of novel or minor cannabinoids, which also include CBN, CBD-V and others. They’re in high demand because few growers are producing them. 

Like CBD, minor cannabinoids are nonintoxicating and can be used in topicals, edibles, beverages and even smokable flower.

The CBG content of Panakeia is 18%, according to the companies. One of the purported benefits of CBG is that it relieves ailments from immune disorders.

Cannabis Orchards and Hemp Trading said they are planning to have the feminized Panakeia CBG seed be approved by Health Canada to be on the list of approved cultivars by fall 2020.

Hemp Trading, a cannabis company that operates in more than 20 countries, developed the the hemp variety with the Spanish Universidad Politcnica de Valencia.

Hemp Trading said Panakeia is being distributed in the U.S. by Front Range Biosciences and Tesoro Genetics.

Dr. Bronner’s Supports US Hemp Farmers

By Happi Staff
Source: happi.com

Dr. Bronner's Sources 100% of the organic hemp seed oil in

its products from US farmers.

 

Dr. Bronner’s now sources its entire supply, approximately 30 metric tons annually, of USDA Organic hemp seed oil used in its soap and other body care products, from US farmers.

This achievement marks the cumulative success of more than two decades of committed advocacy by the company to legalize hemp farming in the US, including the donation of more than $3.6 million to legalization efforts over the past two decades; widespread public education and grassroots advocacy organizing per the Hemp History Week campaign; and engagement in numerous legal battles to protect the right of US farmers to cultivate this versatile and sustainable crop.
 
“Bringing hemp back to the American agricultural landscape is a big win for farmers, consumers, environmentalists and sustainable manufacturers alike, and we’re proud to support the growing US hemp industry with our dedicated business,” said David Bronner, cosmic engagement officer of Dr. Bronner’s. “We will continue the fight to further dismantle unjust federal prohibition of cannabis cultivation in the US, so that the full healing potential of this plant is realized—for the sake of our health and the planet.”
 
Dr. Bronner’s sources domestic hemp oil from a variety of supply partners including Victory Hemp Foods, founded in 2015, which produces USDA Organic Hemp Seed Oil sourced from farmers in Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Texas and Washington. 
 
“Dr. Bronner's has been a leading voice and contributor working to change federal legislation allowing hemp to be grown here in the U.S. The company’s purchasing power has allowed us to expand contracts and acreage to prioritize U.S. farmers making organic hemp part of a rotation that helps to build soil and sequester carbon,” said Chad Rosen, founder and CEO of Victory Hemp Foods. “As a value-add processor that is contracting farmers and converting farm commodities into ingredients, it is critical that we align with customers that share our goal to shape the supply chain into one that will result in a positive outcome for our farmers and the environment. We're very fortunate to work with Dr. Bronner's team, and are excited to be making a positive impact in our communities.”

New lawsuit aims to force DEA to reschedule marijuana

By Bruce Kennedy
Source: medicalcannabisbrief.com



A new lawsuit would force the DEA to reconsider the criteria set in 1992 to determine the 'accepted medical use' of cannabis. (AdobeStock)

In recent years, lawsuits directed against the federal government’s prohibition of cannabis have tried—and repeatedly failed—to knock down marijuana’s Schedule I status.

A recently filed lawsuit, however, suggests the legal wall against cannabis legalization should not even exist, due to a mistake made more than 25 years ago.

In late May, Sue Sisley with the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) in Arizona, along with three military veterans, filed a legal action against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Sisley, a medical doctor, has made headlines in recent years for her groundbreaking clinical trials that have examined the potential benefits of using marijuana to treat veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The results of that study are expected to be published later this year. She has also publically called out the federal government over what she has described as the poor quality and low potency of the U.S.-government grown cannabis that federal law requires scientists use in their limited, federally-approved cannabis studies, as provided via the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

The ‘Catch 22’ of Schedule I

According to a press release from SRI, the DEA has for decades now “applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether a drug has a ‘currently accepted medical use’ under the Controlled Substances Act,” the law that since 1970 has classified cannabis as a Schedule I Drug, defined as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Research is needed to move cannabis out of Schedule I. But that research can't be done with Schedule I drugs.

That classification, the release continues, is “directly responsible for the current ‘Catch-22’ many have noted, where marijuana is in Schedule I because of the absence of clinical trials, but no robust clinical trials can be conducted because it is in Schedule I.”

“We’re focused on getting ‘real world’ cannabis flower in the lab,” Sisley said in an email to Leafly. “The NIDA/DEA monopoly represents one of the final and most onerous barriers to cannabis efficacy research. We want to do clinical trials with whole flower. Marijuana’s current schedule is part of a system that is preventing that from happening.”

Reconsidering a 1992 test

The lawsuit seeks a review of the DEA’s interpretation of the phrase, that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment.”

According to the court petition, the DEA uses a five-part test that originated in 1992 when the agency considers whether a drug or other substance can be considered for “accepted use in medical treatment” in the United States. That test looks at:

(1) Whether a drug’s chemistry is known and reproducible

(2) Whether there are adequate safety studies

(3) Whether there are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy

(4) Whether the drug is not accepted by qualified experts

(5) Whether the scientific evidence is not widely available

The new lawsuit claims the DEA-created test has no basis and rests on “flawed and outdated case law.” It also requests the Court vacate and set aside that 1992 five-factor test—while also seeking a “review of DEA’s final determination that marijuana must be placed in either Schedule I or II” of the Controlled Substances Act.

New realities and international treaties

Matt Zorn is an associate at Yetter Coleman, the Houston law firm that is filing the lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Sisley, the three veterans and the SRI. Zorn said the DEA is not paying attention to the realities of how cannabis has been used medically over the past several decades.

The lawsuit, he told Leafly, is “about challenging the rule that DEA uses to evaluate rescheduling petitions.”

Zorn noted that DEA officials have been doing their job by applying a standard for cannabis that a court, at one point, approved. However, he continued, “we just don’t think the full body of evidence was before the court then.”

One other issue, he said, is the federal government’s reference to international treaty obligations when the DEA pushes back against cannabis legalization. He noted that Canada and other countries that have legalized cannabis have found ways around that dilemma.

Zorn said the lawsuit’s opening brief is scheduled to take place this August.

Researchers want to study real-world cannabis

“The federal government has repeatedly said it is powerless to reschedule marijuana because of the absence of clinical trials,” said Sisley. “But what we’ve shown over the past few years is that there are few randomized controlled trials (RCT) because of marijuana’s scheduling. They have set an unattainable standard by demanding RCTs but not allowing for real-world cannabis study drug to be utilized. So you’re in the classic situation of garbage in equals garbage out.”

Moving cannabis to a Schedule III classification, which encompasses drugs with moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, “wouldn’t legalize marijuana or make marijuana an FDA approved drug, but it would allow researchers to start obtaining real-world cannabis to study,” she added.

2020 Outlook: Licensed U.S. hemp acreage falls 9% from 2019, but grower numbers increase 27%

By Laura Drotleff
Source: hempindustrydaily.com

U.S. farmers are planting less hemp than they did last year due to regulatory uncertainty, a surplus of hemp flower and biomass held over from 2019 and continuously falling wholesale prices.

As of Thursday, licensed total hemp acreage to date has reached 465,787 acres for the 2020 production season, with 47 state departments of agriculture reporting numbers to Hemp Industry Daily.

The 2020 licensed acreage is a 9% decrease, compared to 511,442 total licensed acres of hemp across 34 states in 2019, which was more than quadruple the number of acres licensed from 2018, industry advocacy group Vote Hemp reported last fall.

Hemp production acreage in 2020 was projected by many industry insiders to decrease for the first time since 2014, when the 2014 Farm Bill established hemp pilot research programs nationwide.

Even with new hemp states coming online after passing hemp production legislation in 2019 and gaining USDA approval for their state plans, overall acreage numbers to date are down from last year.

For more details on the licensed acreage by state, download this PDF.

Number breakdown

Some states don’t separate outdoor and indoor production but of the 27 that do, licensed indoor production accounts for 93,666,091 square feet or 2,150 acres.

Comparatively, the largest 100 greenhouse producers in the U.S. account for just under 220 million square feet of indoor production, according to an annual ranking from Greenhouse Grower, a news publication covering the sector.

States licensed a total of 21,496 growers, a 27% increase compared to the 16,877 farmers and researchers licensed in 34 states in 2019, according to Vote Hemp. The number of growers licensed for 2019 showed a 476% increase over 2018.

Seven states didn’t have acreage numbers ready yet and several said that their numbers are not final, as growers continue to apply for licenses.

One state, New Hampshire, has producers growing under U.S. Department of Agriculture jurisdiction. A spokesman for the agency told Hemp Industry Daily that the USDA has issued five licenses to producers in the state.

States that track and require processor licenses have granted 4,485 processor-handlers licenses. However, several states said they don’t require licenses for processors, so there is much greater processing capacity within the U.S. that is currently unaccounted for.

Top states

States that have led the nation in hemp production since 2014 have seen a marked decrease in licensed acreage. Of the top 10 hemp states by acreage licensed in 2018, only two – New York and North Carolina – have increased licensed acres and registered growers. Consider:

	Outdoor (acres)		Indoor (square feet)		Growers
State	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
Colorado	80,000	61,854	9 million	15.4 million	2,300	2,017
Kentucky	58,000	32,000	6 million	4.6 million	1,047	960
Montana	40,000	11,685	–	150,000	250	95
Nevada	9,145	3,678	1.3 million	734,903	154	96
New York	5,000	29,777	–	9,042,279	278	667
North Carolina	11,572	16,434	4.5 million	7,276,394	933	1,503
North Dakota	2,175	Currently unknown	–	–	38
Oregon	51,313	29,604	7.7 million	7,309,873	1,449	1,129
Tennessee	37,416	51,000 (thru 7/1/20)	2,643	–	2,900	3,830
Wisconsin	16,100 (combined	11,626 (combined)	–	–	1,240	696

 

New hemp states ramping up

Notable licensing numbers for this year in new and relatively young hemp states indicate grower enthusiasm for the new crop including:

• California – 32,504.9 acres; licensed 655 growers and breeders
• Arizona – 34,000 acres; 1,520,000 indoor sq ft; 157 growers; 60 processors
• Illinois – 26,264 acres; 770 growers; 317 processors
• Michigan – 13,225 acres; 11 million indoor sq. ft.; 806 outdoor growers and 350 indoor growers; 447 processor-handlers
• Florida – 16,000 acres; 386 growers; 9 processors
• Kansas – 9,903.05 acres; 214 growers; 23 processors

2020 Predictions

Of course, licensed numbers don’t account for actual planted numbers.

The state of Missouri tracks this in its pre-season numbers. Although it licensed 21,000 acres, the state also asks for planned acreage and square footage, saying most growers license more land to grow on but don’t typically plant more than their reported planned acreage. And it’s a big difference – growers in Missouri said they plan to produce 3,892 total acres this season.

If more states provided this distinction, it would give the industry a more accurate picture of actual planted acres at the beginning of the season.

In 2019, Vote Hemp predicted that 230,000 of the 511,442 licensed acres would actually be planted.

“Licensing is a good indicator to show intent, but we know from previous years that significantly less hemp is planted than what is licensed due to a variety of factors, including access to seed and clones, a lack of financing as well as inexperience,” said Vote Hemp president Eric Steenstra.

The USDA’s Farm Service Agency reported in mid-summer 2019 that there were 146,780 acres planted in 2019.

But according to Colorado-based research firm The Jacobsen, that data was skewed because tens of thousands of acres went unreported in states like Oregon and Colorado, accounting for new farmers and cannabis growers, who didn’t have a relationship with the FSA.

In 2020, acreage reporting to the FSA is compulsory as part of the USDA’s interim final rule and the agency will also record intended use including fiber, grain, seed or cannabinoid production, said senior hemp analyst Chase Hubbard in The Jacobsen’s 2020 U.S. Hemp Crop Outlook released in May.

In the report, The Jacobsen projected planted hemp acreage for this year will be 157,082 acres.

Harvested numbers are a much different story, as the number of harvested acres in 2019 were likely half of what was planted, according to Vote Hemp.

The organization estimated 50%-60% of 2019 planted acres would be harvested due to crop failure, non-compliant crops and other factors, resulting in a 2019 total of 115,000-138,000 acres of harvested hemp.

Harvested hemp acreage numbers for 2019 appear still unreported by USDA-FSA.

Producing beyond cannabinoids

Based on The Jacobsen’s May 2020 production survey, the bulk of the 2020 crop, 79.4%, will be dedicated to cannabinoid production, with 14.5% focused on CBG-dominant genetics. The survey showed 2.5% of 2020 acreage would be planted for fiber varieties and 3.6% for grain.

According to Hemp Industry Daily’s 2019 Hemp & CBD Factbook, 94% of producers grew flower varieties for cannabinoid production last year, while 10% focused on seed and grain varieties and 11% grew for fiber and stalks.

Prior to COVID-19, Steenstra of Vote Hemp predicted during the Industrial Hemp Summit in February that more farmers will begin growing grain or dual use hemp crops.

A growing interest in fiber and grain varieties is showing, according to Andrew Bish, CEO of Hemp HarvestWorks, who said Tuesday that he has received more inquiries about harvesting equipment for grain and fiber hemp from producers this year, than in previous years.

However, no matter what growers decide to plant, planning is the key to success, said Mark Reinders, CEO of HempFlax and president of the European Industrial Hemp Association.

“Do not plant hemp if you do not have a harvesting plan and if you do not have a contract at a processing facility,” Reinders said.

“The total crop valuation only works if the whole infrastructure is in place. … Start with your market and then work backward to the crop, but please do not plant any seeds without any planning because you will lose money.”