Red seaweed (e.g., Asparagopsis taxiformis) has been praised for inhibiting methane production from cattle by more than 80 percent because of its high bromoform content. trihalomethanes, such as bromoform decreases methane emissions from cattle belches.
Unfortunately, red seaweed is difficult to farm.

This particular video above is 4 years old, and seaweed supplements are now past the initial testing phase.

A few more recent articles I found include….

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/592243-hold-off-for-now-on-feeding-seaweed-to-cows-to-reduce-methane/

Lyrics-
Tuning out of star-light, the innocent lifetime flickers and flashes onto a canvas. But no, nobody seems worth it

And while the feeling's sophisticated, the view is so restrained. The past is nearing closer, and closer I fear.

So let's just cut the bullshit, and tell me who's independent. Thumbs twiddling' and your life's escaping your mind

Keep In mind, well the air ain't as free as it used to be but that's quite alright while you're still eighteen

It seems, to be, and i'll tell you who's over-rated. What's a beautiful person with some hideous dreams?

And while the lining isn't silver, we're verging on the side of the road, that'll take us home.

The edge of us is getting weighed, read about your life in your local papers.

Realize, the end of us is getting near, you're just a droplet of paint trickled off your canvas.

Delirious, illusions flowing backwards through the river of colour while we analyze to try to see it clearer. Secretly appealing to a lonely prisoner. Now what's your vision?

Initiate your shading, blend the universe together in time it only gets a little easier. Suddenly you piece yourself back together. Now what's your vision?

And I don't wanna have to give a damn about you or your inhibitions.

After all, you're the one who taught me love was not for every body.

However, I'm starting to see this world in the right light, yet still gets darker.

You see, it's just a simple symphony, or a painting? Whatever

This unnatural path, it spans infinitely, but my world is crumbling.

Let it collapse into the abyss, in the midst of summer it won't exist.

This emptiness, it's just a blank slate, waiting for a painter to interfere.

It's quite complex, but what do I know?

Wow. That would be cool. And no risk of mission inhibiting issues like the morse code in Curiosity's wheels which has led to premature fatigue.

Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.

Even the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is 5 times that of Japan. Japanese gun control can't take credit for all that. Personality is more than 50% heritable, and by extension, so is violent behavior. (Case in point: the vegas killer's father was on the FBI most wanted list). Personalitywise, Japanese tend to be relatively meek and inhibited. Even if every one of them owned a gun, their murder rate would probably still be a fraction of the US murder rate.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

Kind of....but not as you describe.
Folks are already disqualified only if they have been found by the courts to be dangerously mentally defective after testing by a professional. That's a much bigger hurdle to leap than simply BEING defective, a hurdle that rarely is leaped.
You don't have to lie or hide anything if you've never been tested by a professional and deemed dangerous. Most mental defectives have not had that happen.
Guns MAY be confiscated after one is deemed legally dangerously mentally defective AND that determination is forwarded to the police AND they have the time and manpower to do something about it. That usually only happens when the person is already being prosecuted for some crime, they are found by the court to be dangerous to themselves and/or others, AND their guns are registered.

I have no idea where you got this idea that the law says indigence=criminally insane....it simply does not. Some elderly are having their firearms taken when they are put on welfare because they have dementia and can't manage their funds, but that's not what you said. It may be true that those forced by financial pressures to live in government run homes are not allowed to bring their firearms there, but again, that's not what you said.
The state does not move in and forcibly 'financially manage' the indigent in the US just because they're poor. Ever. If they did, we would not have a growing homeless population.

There are so many loopholes to 'compulsory service' that it's not compulsory at all, nor is it likely to ever be used again. Massive numbers of untrained soldiers is no longer a positive on the battlefield.

Being well trained in the proper use of firearms inhibits accidental misuse of firearms AND makes one reasonably 100% liable for their misuse if they ignore their training. If you were never trained what's proper and what's not, it makes it easy to misuse them and to then claim ignorance to avoid or mitigate liability for your actions.

-Newt

Actually, folks are already are disqualified if mentally defective.

That's one of the things you're asked when filling out form 4473 when you try to buy a firearm, and it's one of the things checked when running the background check.

The fact that they ask the question is just to have the ability to charge you with a crime (lying to the govt) should you try to hide your status.

Also, currently, guns are confiscated after one is adjudicated mentally defective.

(This is a matter of contention lately, because elderly people have had their guns taken when they run out of money and are put under state financial management - because being unable to manage your own funds (hard to do when savings run dry and welfare doesn't pay enough to cover basic living expenses) indicates a mental defect).

The selective service act already has compulsory military service when called upon.

As a sidenote, being well trained with the use of firearms does not inhibit misuse of those firearms. It just makes you better at using firearms.

-scheherazade

Isn't Leary's whole shtick that he's really just a lucky asshole?

He's in character. He typically gets humbled (owned) in his comedic acts; he's the every man's angry man that needs the humbling experiences to grow rather than be destoyed by hubris.

I've never seen him as the type who competes, rather he reacts with the inhibitions of an angry drunk tellIing it lIke it is. It's difficult for me to see the difference between him being Dennis Leary for real and him being Dennis Leary in his acts. You always get the feeling he is implicitly telling his jokes from the underdog's perspective. He was just wrong about a fact, except he's a comedian, so being owned while in character is the riposte and payoff for the act. Greg's stare down ONLY works because it's against Leary. Two man bit. Three man with Colin's visual gag. (It's like the Marx Bros.)

They both win at comedy, but Greg wins at facts.

t's possible to love someone
And not treat them in the way that you want
It's possible to see your eyes
Be the devil in disguise with another front
And, it's possible to change this world
Revolutionise the boys and girls
It's possible to educate
The next generation that will rule the world someday

The changing times of the 21st century
Means nothing to me cos I would rather be
At the beginning of time, earth would be mine
Living in luxury
Discovering a world out there
Believing in the sun earth water and air
Take me there so I could see the world bloom
Standing on a sea cliff howling at the moon
Creating a world for the open minded
A unique perception of truth inside it
I know we could find it
It's just a matter of where and when we collectively decide it
The world is not a vicious place
It's just the way we've been raised
Discovering time and space
I know that we could make a change
Rearrange the way that we appreciate the world today

It's possible to love someone..

Now as i start to put my mind into words
I stall I fall I'm loosing it all, my inhibitions
The thought of wasting a way
The fact that the music's at a place not far away
Yet I stray and stick to my world
In love with my life my beliefs and a girl
Is it luck that I love this crazy place, the human race?
Don't get me wrong I still think we could change
But this life and the fact that time exists
And were here and we don't come equipped with it all
Half the fun is learning and I'm having a ball
While the world keeps turning my role is small
But I'll make a change
I hope you're feeling the same way
I hope you're seeing what I say

It's possible to love someone..

In this concrete jungle we live
Our survival is love that we give
Now my instinct is guiding my way
It's true what they say
The world is your chance to create

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

Stevia is too new to make any real determinations on. Currently, there is a lot of uncertainty. Just because something comes from a plant doesn't make it safer. Almonds used to be loaded with cyanide before we eliminated the trees that had those kinds of almonds. There have been recent studies questioning the safety of stevia, and this will likely be dealt with over the next decade. Unfortunately, certain countries have gotten around the necessary procedures for sufficient scientific inquiry because they are marketing it not as a food additive or sweetener but as a dietary supplement, which makes it easier to avoid such scrutiny. Unlike xylitol, which is perfectly fine for human consumption and has been shown to inhibit growth of oral bacteria that leads to caries and plaque, stevia is simply an unknown at this point.

However, stevia has also been around for a while. It has been a product since the 90s and has been banned and un-banned in numerous countries. European reports have shown that it is safe, but it is also still banned in many countries there.

For those of you think that it is "natural" and thus safer, I urge you to look up the naturalistic fallacy on wikipedia before going any further here. It has also been used as a sweetener by certain tribal peoples for centuries, so that means absolutely nothing as far as science goes, but it will still sway many people over, just like traditional herbal Chinese medicines like tiger penis powder and rhinoceros horn powder.

However, it is not a "natural" substance whatsoever, even though that word means nothing in nutrition anyways. Basically they take a small amount of Rebaudioside A from the stevia plant and use a bunch of alcohols and other chemicals to extract out the active sweetening ingredient and then crystallize it. This is then renamed steviol. It is significantly less sweet than most of the other sweeteners, except maybe saccarin, at only about 150x the sweetness of sugar.

Basically, Stevia is probably not bad for you, although the verdict is definitely not in on this one. It is no more "natural" than any of the other sweeteners. You need more of it to reach the same level of sweetness as your other sweeteners so dosage could be an issue. But you have to understand that each of the companies that makes these sweeteners has to find a way to sell their product. So, what do they do? They claim that their sweetener is "natural" and "safe" which implies that all of the other sweeteners that came before it aren't, and as evidence by my previous tirades, this is simply not the case. But they profit from our unwillingness to look at the data for ourselves and play on our natural tendencies to trust them.

In short, we are not certain about stevia yet, but we are certain that sugar is bad and aspartame is fine. However, you probably shouldn't eat any processed food, but we already know that in our bones. We all know that cooking up a delicious meal from simple ingredients is the best way to eat healthy but we don't do it because we are lazy. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. We can only dream of a future similar to "The Invention of Lying" where marketers aren't allowed to lie to us and can simply say that their food is bad for you but you drink it because it tastes good and because you have been for years. A world where they can't market to our children so we don't all grow up addicted to halloween candy or cereals that are more sugar than grains. The best way to do this is to cut your cable from the television and live on the internet with AdBlock installed. Then those fuckers can't get at you as easily.

Yeah, 'cos I'm sure she and her family just gave up immediately....

Once again, there is no solid evidence that cannabis cures cancer. There are a number of promising studies that show that cannabinoids might inhibit tumour growth, but that's a world away from "curing cancer".

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

No, you'd be remiss if you opined blatant misinformation.

While there is a possibility that cannabinoids can inhibit tumour growth, there is nothing even close to a solid evidence base to show that "cannabis cures cancer".