By January 16, 2015 22 Comments Read More →

Should Children be Allowed to try Cannabis Before Chemo?

Cannabis Flower - 1Alex Pietrowski, Staff
Waking Times

As the movement to legalize cannabis continues to gain momentum, and as more research is conducted, we are discovering that this easy-to-grow plant is effective in treating many difficult illnesses, and surprisingly many types of deadly cancers. Cancer treatment in the U.S. has become its own industry, and even though chemotherapy admittedly over-prescribed and is known to have many devastating side effects, chemo and radiation are still the treatments most touted by doctors and the medical establishment.

Many people are seeking out medical marijuana as an alternative to conventional cancer treatment, and success stories are easy to find. Yet, underage cancer patients sometimes find that their legal rights when fighting cancer are unclear, and that when the state decides to intervene, their personal sovereignty may be compromised.

A 17 year-old girl’s plea to the Connecticut Supreme Court was recently rejected, and now, against her personal will and that of her mother and legal guardian, the state will resume forcing her to undergo chemotherapy as treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She had already been ordered by a lower court to undergo chemotherapy, however, due to the negative side-effects, she skipped several sessions. When she took her plea to the Supreme Court, they rejected her argument, saying that by skipping treatment she had proven herself to be too immature to decide for herself, and that she must resume chemotherapy.

“The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 8th that a teenager diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma who declined treatment with chemotherapy will be made to undergo treatment anyway. The 17-year-old female, who cited chemotherapy’s adverse health effects as her primary reason for refusing, is now in protective custody at Connecticut hospital where she will be forced to undergo treatment against her will, and the will of her mother, her legal guardian, who supported her decision.” [Source]

Forced chemotherapy for minors is nothing new, and those who have been watching the rise in the use and study of cannabis for treating Hodgkin’s lymphoma have an excellent question for those charged with this case: Is chemotherapy for childhood Hodgkin’s lymphoma really as life-saving as is claimed?

Interestingly, as government intrusion becomes more of an issue when confronting health decisions, the movement to legalize cannabis for medical purposes is steadily gaining strength. Long stigmatized, cannabis, unlike chemotherapy, is anarchic in nature and cannot so easily be controlled by the corporate/government paradigm, for it is merely a hearty seed which grows medicine for whomever will tend it. Nowadays growing your own cannabis is not difficult, as it is now legal in many places, and getting getting started is as easy as visiting an online cannabis seeds store. Methods for converting the plant into potent medicines like cannabis oil are readily available online, thus effectively privatizing a potential cure for cancer.

Connecticut is a medical marijuana state. Doctors can prescribe it, and patients can legally buy it at state regulated dispensaries. Research and personal testimony is available to support the case that cannabis can effectively treat Hodgkin’s lymphoma, yet in this recent example, the Connecticut Supreme Court failed to acknowledge the fact that chemotherapy is not the only treatment known to fight this deadly cancer.

As laws regarding medical cannabis evolve, more states are ratifying a minor’s right to have access to cannabis. Last year in Chicago, for example, Illinois state lawmakers passed legislation allowing minors access to medical marijuana with the consent of their parent or legal guardian. Many other states are following suit.


As evidence mounts that cannabis treats cancer and that chemotherapy is dangerous, should children be allowed to try cannabis before chemotherapy if they or their guardians so desire?

Access to medicine that works is a human right, especially so when that medicine is as cheap and natural as cannabis. Empathy is a quality that individuals possess and bureaucracies don’t understand. Medical treatment without consent is torture, and withholding natural and cheap medicines in the struggle against cancer is just cruel, especially so when the lives of children are at stake.

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for and an avid student of Yoga and life.


©2015 Waking Times, all rights reserved. For permission to re-print this article contact, or the respective author.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

  • Right now at least 75% of the doctor’s that recommend ‘chemo’ for their patients would not use it themselves! Different products made from cannabis have been useful in the treatment of cancer, without all the side effects. The unfortunate thing about ‘chemo’ is that it cannot tell healthy cells from cancerous ones so it just destroys them all!

  • grrr

    james peters is clearly a big pharma shill …dont even give the scumbag a response. lets hope he uses the chemo himself one day

  • et Setera

    Of course children should be given this life-saver, it was surely placed on the planet with loving concern for us and other living creatures. Unlike the mean-spirited concoctions of Big Pharma, ‘if you want to get better, you are going to have to pay for it’ – complete with a range of debilitating ill effects, and a slim chance of cure or remission.

  • Absolutely! No question about it… and I love the statement, “but that is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research”, I would argue that those personal stories are in Fact “facts” and in turn “research”.

  • Zenzing

    @jamespeters Here is some scientific evidence for you.

    • James Peters

      This was an In vitro (test tube/petri dish) study. They used lymphoma derived cell lines (human I hope) and the conclusions were; ”The present study identifies CB1 as a feature of HL, which might serve as a potential selective target in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma.” All this means now is a In vivo (animal) study will be undertaken and will be another waste of sentient life and money. Not only this but we will never know if it the chemicals from the cannabis plant will help those with Hodgkin lymphoma or not

  • Sujee

    Absolutely, any cancer patient should be first treated with Cannabis Oil for minimum of three months before deciding to go for chemo or radiation therapy. It should be the new norm in treating cancer irrespective of the age of the patient!

  • I have personally witnessed people treating themselves with hemp oil and eliminating cancer. The process takes about two months. One person, in her 30’s, had stage II bladder cancer. Her doctors at Johns Hopkins, who had treated her originally with chemo, told her that the recurring cancer would kill her within six months if she did not get more chemo.
    Instead she took daily hemp oil, as much as she could handle, due to the psychoactive properties of such concentrated doses.
    She called Thanksgiving 2013 after two months of self treatment and told us that she had complete remission when examined by the same Johns Hopkins oncologists. (she said they refused to believe her treatment protocol.)
    It is now over a year later and no return, she feels great and is very happy she used alternative treatment.
    the worst case scenario for treatment with hemp oil is having a bad bad buzz from the hemp oil. The worst treatment by traditional allopathic pharmacology when using radiation to kill radiation is acceleration of the cancer causing cells, hair loss, vomiting, etc.

    here is my research aggregation on hemp oil and treatment protocol:

    • James Peters

      But this is anecdotal evidence, its not necessarily true or reliable, because its based on personal accounts rather than facts or research

      • Anonymous

        How many anecdotal evidence do you need before it becomes reliable.

        Here is one more. My grand father 86 years old with small cell lung cancer stage 4. Doctor said it was incurable. 3 month later cancer is all gone.

        He died of a pneumonia since he also took the ”normal” treatments witch destroyed his immune system.

        I know if I get sick what treatments I am not taking

        • James Peters

          But as I’ve said ”its based on personal accounts rather than facts or research”. The key is finding out using Phase I-III trials and/or case reports if it helps on not. This is one of the few Phase I trials so far You can find some more by doing a search here If you should get sick then why would you use an unproven treatment?

          • Matthew Sands

            Well one scenario comes to mind. Like if someone is deemed incurable or terminal they have the option of waiting to die or trying alternatives. Also while I accept that the clinical evidence falls short of being outright proof and the outright cancer curing in humans is consigned to anecdotal (though many are well supported cases) the fact remains that the evidence you talk of that would constitute outright official proof has not been allowed to be accrued. Only patented diluted drugs like Sativex have been approved for clinical trials despite the evidence long being sufficient for official trials and the anecdotal cases could have represented case reports if patients were not left to do this on their own and forced underground by the ridiculous prohibition

          • Padre

            Oh, you mean like when Doctors uniformly rejected washing their hands between patients (or autopsies and patients)for a hundred years because it came from “anecdotal” evidence from mid-wives? The ones whose “research” in the 40s & 50s “proved” cigarettes were harmless? The “profession” that causes over 100,000 PREVENTABLE DEATHS A YEAR? Their “proven” treatment? A 2.1% survival rate for chemotherapy after 5 years “proves” their treatment is better than an “unproven treatment”?

            Wow. I’ve got to know; when you look at Doctors, are you blinded by their halos?

          • James Peters

            @Matthew Sands January 22, 2015 at 8:12 am. I’d have no problem with people trying the oil if they have been deemed incurable or terminal, even though I think there are better ”alternatives”. The problem comes with the costs to the patient, making it and the quality of the oil. Sativex contains a low natural dose of both THC and CBD. You can put anything (within reason of course) through a clinical trial as long as you pay for it and the risks to the people taking part aren’t deemed a problem. Anecdotal cases aren’t proof, but if everyone on the oil had their progress followed and then written up as a case report and these made case studies, it would be very interesting to read.

          • James Peters

            Padre January 22, 2015 at 11:33 am. Doctors just like everyone else get and die of cancer. So they don’t ”wash their hands”, they have tried everything thats been through Phase I-III trials. Also the 1, 5 and 10 year survival rates for most cancers are better than 2/3% and chemo does help

          • Franklin Pierce

            Enough of the drug comparison. Cannabis is a plant. The FDA is nowhere near qualified to identify all components of a natural plant and possibly speculate on the effects of each one or any natural combination. The FDA has never approved a plant as a drug. Coffee, for example is made up of hundreds of compounds and trace minerals appear in different crops raised in different parts of the world. Caffeine is an isolated compound that occurs in the coffee plant. It is FDA approved. Coffee is not approved as a drug. Yet doctors recommend drinking a cup of coffee for a headache every day. The question you keep repeating you must know has no answer, or can’t be answered in the language your’re speaking. It was sort of entertaining about 10 years ago. It’s not anymore. Choose a subject and stay only on that subject per discussion if you wanted to be treated like an adult. You can’t refer to marijuana as both a drug and a plant in the same argument. When most people are discussing marijuana they are referring to the natural plant. That substance is on the CSA as of now, but it’s still not a drug just as the poppy plant is not a drug but you can eat enough poppy seeds in one bagel to show up in a urine test for opiates. THC absolutely has been proven to kill pancreatic cancer cells without destroying the healthy cells in a UK study, published last year, do your own research. The advantage over radiation is that radiation kills all your cells in that area. Isolated THC is a drug and it has proven in laboratory results to kill cancer cells. There is no absolute “cure” for anything the way this old argument of yours is presented. I’ve seen it a hundred times and as have yet have not found even the best trolls able to locate a single cure of anything in the history of the human race the way the argument is posed. We have treatments. In modern English language we visit doctors for medicine, and some people call healing a cure. In regards we can say that Marijuana cures a lot of things. In your tired old argument you fail to inform people what qualifies as the word “cure” in your special little mind. . Everything and nothing are two absolute answers that apply to this test game of the prohibitionist. You are a copy of a copy of copy. The debate about Prohibition has come and gone among the people who matter. We have now moved on to how best to implement in a society that has been lied to for 40 years. If you missed the debate over whether America is going to move ahead with ending Cannabis Prohibition, then by that evidence alone, you don’t matter. Your opinion was not valuable enough to be considered. We will get around to educating Arkansas. It makes sense to begin with the states that need the least education. You just got some education. Instead of taking it personally and just being gleeful that you got some attention. Maybe research what we are doing and have been doing on the West Coast since 1995. This isn’t new.

      • Anonymous

        This is not anecdotal, this is scientific evidence.

  • Darkwing

    Hemp Oil has proven to cure cancer, but big Phrmar will not make millions off of it, that is why it is banded.

    • James Peters

      No its never been proven to cure cancer. GW Pharma already has a number of patents on its THC and CBD spray. Patents aren’t proof either

      • Anonymous

        research amigo….

      • thecure

        Don’t preach what you don’t know. I’ve witnessed the plant work miracles personally. Have you? GW has patents on cannabidiol, not the whole plant. The whole plant and it’s 60+ CBDs are the cure. That’s like gatorade saying they have electrolytes in their drink, but we all know you get more electrolytes eating fruit. Not a great analogy since gatorade doesn’t even have electrolytes, but you get the idea.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend