Quote Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
^^^ Definitely the right choice. Marijuana does not cure cancer, but it makes you forget about some of the side effects, namely nausea and pain. There's a fine line between touting marijuana's proven benefits and playing the charlatan by dangling false cures and treatments to the sick. It makes sense for organizations like the National Cancer Institute to take a very conservative tack when outlining the ways marijuana can help cancer patients.

Sorry, I think its worth nitpicking this point. The original wording on the NCI site was absolutely correct, "possible direct antitumor effect." Here are just a few studies that support such language:

Cancers | Free Full-Text | Molecular Mechanisms Involved in the Antitumor Activity of Cannabinoids on Gliomas: Role for Oxidative Stress
Antitumor Effects of Cannabidiol, a Nonpsychoactive Cannabinoid, on Human Glioma Cell Lines
ScienceDirect - Gynecologic Oncology : Arachidonyl ethanolamide induces apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells via aberrantly expressed vanilloid receptor-1
Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma
SpringerLink - Archives of Pharmacal Research, Volume 19, Number 3

It is false that the only use for marijuana is to make one forget about the side effects of cancer (treatment). It is true that research supports "its possible direct antitumor effect." I think its an important point very worth nitpicking. I think its reasonable to assume that a few interested parties--e.g., those who have spent billions developing and selling cancer "treatments" with no cure--made some calls because they are jealous about a weed having a possible direct antitumor effect in cases, and they would like that the government not promote the public understanding of a threat to their business. I think that's the simplest and most reasonable explanation for what happened.