Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 20, 2014, 03:58:45 PM
-
or perhaps not
seems like a decent study especially so in light of the suggestion to look into it more.
will not make the faithful happy
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2014/04/20/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds-n1825682?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
and in colorado
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/04/illnesses-and-murder-prompt-second-look-at-marijuanas-potency-and-edibles-in-colorado/#.U1QnE6K0_-V
-
I really don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems the feds will not allow any studies into medical benefits of MJ, but they can find money to study how harmful it is. Most things that have legitimate medical use *are* harmful when misused.
People like Woody Harrelson who conflate hemp (as fiber and oil-seed crops) with MJ, and medical MJ with recreational because they want to get high are just as irritating, although probably not doing as much harm.
Also our last 3 (or more) presidents were users, so I have no respect for them and their minions preaching at me about drugs.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2FScreen-shot-2013-01-16-at-224759_zpsc0e40701.png&hash=d4ebc8083911b5613d209b5b535229abf0a42880) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/AJ_Dual/media/Screen-shot-2013-01-16-at-224759_zpsc0e40701.png.html)
-
I don't care if it makes you grow an extra arm that punches you in the nose nonstop until you die.
It doesn't change that:
I won't use it,
Outlawing it has been ineffective since it was first attempted, and
The prohibition of pot and other drugs has been more of a detriment to our society and rule of law than the drugs themselves which continue to be available regardless.
-
but it seems the feds will not allow any studies into medical benefits of MJ,
really? do tell?
is that like "90% of people in jail are in for possession!"?
-
"Abnormalities" meaning what? They say there is an effect, but they stop short of saying it is bad.
Eating concentrated pot is harmful? So freaking what? So is drinking bleach, and we are not outlawing that.
-
perhaps using the link in the article to read the actual study would help. its a bit more specific but only a bit
-
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2238987520/hD16A1BD3/)
-
Most things that have legitimate medical use *are* harmful when misused.
Indeed. And many "legitimate" drugs have harmful effects when used as directed. The list of side effects on the typical drug commercial can be pretty scary.
-
Against my better judgement I type in this thread:
I don't give a *expletive deleted*ck if Pot is or isn't harmful to the person taking it. Tobacco is harmful. Scotch is harmful (and I'll shoot you over trying to take mine). Chicken wings can be harmful. Prozac sure as *expletive deleted*ck is harmful.
I. Don't. Care. What. You. Put. In. Your. Body.
And I resent that a large portion of my income is taken yearly and given to busy-bodied aholes to tell other people what to put in there bodies.
-
Against my better judgement I type in this thread:
I don't give a *expletive deleted* if Pot is or isn't harmful to the person taking it. Tobacco is harmful. Scotch is harmful (and I'll shoot you over trying to take mine). Chicken wings can be harmful. Prozac sure as *expletive deleted* is harmful.
I. Don't. Care. What. You. Put. In. Your. Body.
And I resent that a large portion of my income is taken yearly and given to busy-bodied aholes to tell other people what to put in there bodies.
This
-
And, on Monday night, before Distefano appeared before the House Committee on Health, Insurance, and Environment on two bills to rein in recreational marijuana, a mother of three from Denver on the phone with a 911 operator about the hallucinations being experienced by her husband was killed when he shot her in the head.
Dead is 44-year old Kristine A. Kirk. Her husband, Richard Kirk, 47, is being held without bond on a charge of first-degree murder. He volunteered his guilt while in custody, but before police began interrogating him. Denver Police are investigating whether Kirk smoked or ingested an edible form of marijuana. The 911 call was originally thought to be a domestic disturbance, and the dispatcher was told that the only gun in the home was kept in a safe. Officers arrived just ahead of the shooting.
Every time I heard this in the news they always made sure to mention he had an edible form of marijuana just before shooting her. Almost like they had an angle they were trying to push.
perhaps using the link in the article to read the actual study would help. its a bit more specific but only a bit
The link in the article only takes you to their home page. Here's the link to the actual article, http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/16/5529.full
For some reason I really don't think you actually read it either. In order to read it you can spend $30 to have access to the article for one day from one computer, or spend $75 to have a back issue mailed to you, or spend over $1,000 to subscribe to the article. A few thousand depending on how you are ordering it.
The researchers found that young adults who used marijuana even once or twice a week showed “significant abnormalities in two important brain structures,”
Significant huh? So what it really means is not actually significant otherwise it would of given real numbers, that's why they have to interpret the results for us.
-
I knew the faithful wouldn't like it. http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/04/casual-marijuana-use-linked-to-brain-abnormalities-in-students.html
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Was that supposed to give any real data? Because it didn't.
Of particular note, the nucleus acccumbens was abnormally large,
And...?
Through different methods of neuroimaging, scientists examined the brains of young adults, ages 18 to 25, from Boston-area colleges; 20 who smoked marijuana and 20 who didn’t.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the U.S. with an estimated 15.2 million users, the study reports, based on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2008.
Oh good, we have 20 people that is supposed to represent 15.2 million users, That's .0001%.
-
... Oh good, we have 20 people that is supposed to represent 15.2 million users, That's .0001%.
Hey, it works for the people who do the TV ratings..... [tinfoil]
-
Hey, it works for the people who do the TV ratings..... [tinfoil]
It doesn't work for them either.
-
I knew the faithful wouldn't like it. http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/04/casual-marijuana-use-linked-to-brain-abnormalities-in-students.html
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
No, as usual you are being stubbornly obtuse... We don't care.
Marijuana could be as bad as an OD of Black Tar and a year's abuse of Russian Crocodil combined, killing you, making your extremities all slough off at once, and then reanimating you as a dangerous zombie, and it still wouldn't be as bad as the pernicious cancer of overreaching government and the erosion of our Constitutional rights. And our government has had negligable impact on the actual rate of abuse, except, of course, creating artificial market scarcity, which in turn becomes a profit motivator for crime and violence.
The Alcohol/Prohibition model is clear, and there is no magic reason that makes other drugs different. It's not even really a debate. It just is. Billions in taxes, thousands of dead, or in prisons on what is at it's core, an argument of emotive reasoning.
The only difference is that alcohol has and had wide social acceptance across a wide range of ethnicities and social classes and miraculously had enough good PR to overcome the rediculous overreach of the Eighteenth Amendment. "Other drugs" all had more discrete social patterns that enabled discrimination, Opium = Asians, Marijuana = Migrant Mexican labor, Cocaine = inner city blacks, LSD = Dirty Hippies, and so on.
Nobody here is arguing that Marijuana, much less any other narcotic or hallucinogen is "good", merely that the WOD is worse. If people are going to die from drug abuse, let it be the people who willingly do the drugs. Instead of the people harmed in crimes by addicts looking to pay for drugs, or in the crossfire of gangs fighting over the sale and distribution of drugs.
Get that through your head, please.
Seriously Edward, no amount of brown-nosing the state, or pro-law enforcement cheer-leading rhetoric, or anti drug news you like that fits your worldview is going to compensate for your past life, or somehow bolster the "gone legit" person you are today. The state doesn't care. The cops don't care. We don't care.
Nobody is tallying a score on that. You have to just be comfortable with who you are and own it.
-
I've never done an illegal drug in my life and the prescription narcotics got trashed because they just made me homicidal. I'll probably try some decent pot one day when I'm past the point in life of drug tests, parenting, and any semblance of responsibility. Might be a fun way to view retirement. I despise prohibition and everything the war on drugs has brought us. Really don't give a bit of care that something might be harmful. Besides, isn't mind alteration a feature, not a bug?
-
You know something? I'd rather we have legal pot and erase alcohol from the earth. I've seen WAY more lives ruined due to alcohol than weed. Weed seems less likely to lead to stuff like DUIs, fights, etc (oh don't get me wrong, there are still people out there that DUI and such while high, but not nearly the amount that alcohol brings about)
-
No, as usual you are being stubbornly obtuse... We don't care.
Marijuana could be as bad as an OD of Black Tar and a year's abuse of Russian Crocodil combined, killing you, making your extremities all slough off at once, and then reanimating you as a dangerous zombie, and it still wouldn't be as bad as the pernicious cancer of overreaching government and the erosion of our Constitutional rights. And our government has had negligable impact on the actual rate of abuse, except, of course, creating artificial market scarcity, which in turn becomes a profit motivator for crime and violence.
The Alcohol/Prohibition model is clear, and there is no magic reason that makes other drugs different. It's not even really a debate. It just is. Billions in taxes, thousands of dead, or in prisons on what is at it's core, an argument of emotive reasoning.
The only difference is that alcohol has and had wide social acceptance across a wide range of ethnicities and social classes and miraculously had enough good PR to overcome the rediculous overreach of the Eighteenth Amendment. "Other drugs" all had more discrete social patterns that enabled discrimination, Opium = Asians, Marijuana = Migrant Mexican labor, Cocaine = inner city blacks, LSD = Dirty Hippies, and so on.
Nobody here is arguing that Marijuana, much less any other narcotic or hallucinogen is "good", merely that the WOD is worse. If people are going to die from drug abuse, let it be the people who willingly do the drugs. Instead of the people harmed in crimes by addicts looking to pay for drugs, or in the crossfire of gangs fighting over the sale and distribution of drugs.
Get that through your head, please.
Seriously Edward, no amount of brown-nosing the state, or pro-law enforcement cheer-leading rhetoric, or anti drug news you like that fits your worldview is going to compensate for your past life, or somehow bolster the "gone legit" person you are today. The state doesn't care. The cops don't care. We don't care.
Nobody is tallying a score on that. You have to just be comfortable with who you are and own it.
+1000.
Also, it doesn't help his case that the study has severe methodological flaws. As already noted, the study was only of 40 students, which is completely and utterly statistically insignificant. (http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/apr/10/unreliable-neuroscience-power-matters)
In addition, they don't have "before" and "after" scans of the pot users (http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/45290), which means those abnormalities may have existed prior to smoking pot; the casual link could be completely reversed - i.e., people who have certain brain abnormalities are simply more likely to use drugs.
Finally, these abnormalities were not associated with any discernible negative effects (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/no-weed-won-t-rot-your-brain.html). All of them were healthy with no detected psychological or cognitive impairment, as all participants were per-screened for any such impairments.
The headline of this story would probably be better written as "Study of Pot Smokers' Brains Shows That MRIs Cause Bad Science Reporting".
-
It doesn't work for them either.
Firefly.
-
Indeed. And many "legitimate" drugs have harmful effects when used as directed. The list of side effects on the typical drug commercial can be pretty scary.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eSdNMRtvq5g (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eSdNMRtvq5g)
-
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/04/21/weed-is-the-new-jesus-in-colorado-n1826895?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Against my better judgement I type in this thread:
I don't give a *expletive deleted* if Pot is or isn't harmful to the person taking it. Tobacco is harmful. Scotch is harmful (and I'll shoot you over trying to take mine). Chicken wings can be harmful. Prozac sure as *expletive deleted* is harmful.
I. Don't. Care. What. You. Put. In. Your. Body.
And I resent that a large portion of my income is taken yearly and given to busy-bodied aholes to tell other people what to put in there bodies.
This right there.
-
No, as usual you are being stubbornly obtuse... We don't care.
Marijuana could be as bad as an OD of Black Tar and a year's abuse of Russian Crocodil combined, killing you, making your extremities all slough off at once, and then reanimating you as a dangerous zombie, and it still wouldn't be as bad as the pernicious cancer of overreaching government and the erosion of our Constitutional rights. And our government has had negligable impact on the actual rate of abuse, except, of course, creating artificial market scarcity, which in turn becomes a profit motivator for crime and violence.
The Alcohol/Prohibition model is clear, and there is no magic reason that makes other drugs different. It's not even really a debate. It just is. Billions in taxes, thousands of dead, or in prisons on what is at it's core, an argument of emotive reasoning.
The only difference is that alcohol has and had wide social acceptance across a wide range of ethnicities and social classes and miraculously had enough good PR to overcome the rediculous overreach of the Eighteenth Amendment. "Other drugs" all had more discrete social patterns that enabled discrimination, Opium = Asians, Marijuana = Migrant Mexican labor, Cocaine = inner city blacks, LSD = Dirty Hippies, and so on.
Nobody here is arguing that Marijuana, much less any other narcotic or hallucinogen is "good", merely that the WOD is worse. If people are going to die from drug abuse, let it be the people who willingly do the drugs. Instead of the people harmed in crimes by addicts looking to pay for drugs, or in the crossfire of gangs fighting over the sale and distribution of drugs.
Get that through your head, please.
Seriously Edward, no amount of brown-nosing the state, or pro-law enforcement cheer-leading rhetoric, or anti drug news you like that fits your worldview is going to compensate for your past life, or somehow bolster the "gone legit" person you are today. The state doesn't care. The cops don't care. We don't care.
Nobody is tallying a score on that. You have to just be comfortable with who you are and own it.
+1 Scrillion!!!!!!! Excellent rant my good man.
P.S., don't feed the troll.
-
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/04/21/weed-is-the-new-jesus-in-colorado-n1826895?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
That article was awful, what about it?
-
CSD's trolling is boring.
But what's really fascinating is the one thing this study actually proves. Modern America treats "science" with the fervor of religious zealotry, so every charlatan and huckster (and noxious .gov official) desperately tries to cloak themselves in it. And people are too ignorant of what science actually is to notice or care. It's peasants who can't read basing their theology on the high priest's reading Mass in Latin. Almost anything can be "scientifically proven" with a little motivation, and that bad science can be spun hard by the people with an agenda. Hence all of the "pot causes brain damage" or "Conservatives are sociopaths" etc allegedly scientific studies.
-
A scientific study can be made to say almost anything.
It's funny how some will advocate statism in certain respects but not in others
-
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/04/21/weed-is-the-new-jesus-in-colorado-n1826895?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
-
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
Or as Shakespear put it:
"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
=D
CSD, dude, you need to kick back with a bowl and chill. Is all good man.
-
*Drive-by posting removed*
Instead we'll have a musical interlude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psB0cidB5bg
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Instead of just posting a link to a news story that takes your "argument" into a tangential direction, try to actually DEFEND your position, with reason and logic.
Just like yoga pants, drive by postings should be limited to very rare occasions
-
fitz i am mostly amused that any defense is needed of a study that links a brain condition with amotivational syndrome and also with using pot. its like defending water is wet. getting that result is why i smoked dope. for me it was a feature.
i do think folks who use may want to know what happens in their noggin. well some may some may not.
more amusing is the condition i described as "outrage amongst the faithful". many folks have a lot invested in "weed the concept" and they react much like folks whose religious tenants are assaulted by the infidel.
this study was particularly interesting cause no one has really looked at casual users brains like this that i know of. the folks doing the study self described it as a pilot study with a very small sampling that warranted a larger look. its not like hes advocating burning copies of high times or anything. no need for fatwah
in particular folks might wanna really look long and hard at how weed affects the adolescents and those who are adolescent in spirit
edited to add this quote from huff po piece on same study
it makes me wonder why folks got so defensive
The study is among the first to focus on possible brain effects in recreational pot smokers, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The federal agency helped pay for the work. She called the work important but preliminary.
-
So we should be shocked that a commen drug may perminatly affect adolescents when they use it?
???
Or is it just because, man, it's weed!! Instead of, oh, you know, caffine, adderall, nicotine, alcohol ect. ect...
-
I'd be very curious what damage is being permanently done to all the kids getting legal meth for imaginary ADD.
-
fitz i am mostly amused that any defense is needed of a study that links a brain condition with amotivational syndrome and also with using pot. its like defending water is wet. getting that result is why i smoked dope. for me it was a feature.
i do think folks who use may want to know what happens in their noggin. well some may some may not.
more amusing is the condition i described as "outrage amongst the faithful". many folks have a lot invested in "weed the concept" and they react much like folks whose religious tenants are assaulted by the infidel.
this study was particularly interesting cause no one has really looked at casual users brains like this that i know of. the folks doing the study self described it as a pilot study with a very small sampling that warranted a larger look. its not like hes advocating burning copies of high times or anything. no need for fatwah
in particular folks might wanna really look long and hard at how weed affects the adolescents and those who are adolescent in spirit
edited to add this quote from huff po piece on same study
it makes me wonder why folks got so defensive
The study is among the first to focus on possible brain effects in recreational pot smokers, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The federal agency helped pay for the work. She called the work important but preliminary.
OK... so now that you've actually posted some thoughts, I have a few questions.
First, why should we spend federal money to find out that a mind altering drug alters your mind?
Second, what (if anything) does this do to damage the notion that the prohibition of MJ and its associated problems are worse than the damage the drug itself causes?
-
So we should be shocked that a commen drug may perminatly affect adolescents when they use it?
???
Or is it just because, man, it's weed!! Instead of, oh, you know, caffine, adderall, nicotine, alcohol ect. ect...
No, see... those are legal. Therefore, just fine.
But the illegal drugs... see.... THAT'S what we should waste all kinds of money, lives, and effort on.
Never you mind that some of the legal ones are more harmful than pot. Irrelevant because the cops say its ok
-
First, why should we spend federal money to find out that a mind altering drug alters your mind?
Second, what (if anything) does this do to damage the notion that the prohibition of MJ and its associated problems are worse than the damage the drug itself causes?
1 perhaps since the fed is looking at changing its legal status> wild guess
2 nothing which is why i found the defense of the one true faith interesting
-
I'd be very curious what damage is being permanently done to all the kids getting legal meth for imaginary ADD.
substitute sickened for curious
-
First, why should we spend federal money to find out that a mind altering drug alters your mind?
Second, what (if anything) does this do to damage the notion that the prohibition of MJ and its associated problems are worse than the damage the drug itself causes?
1 perhaps since the fed is looking at changing its legal status> wild guess
2 nothing which is why i found the defense of the one true faith interesting
Regarding 1... we need to spend money to find out things we already know in order to change legal status?
2.) Then i guess i'm failing to see why its relevant at all.
-
So we should be shocked that a commen drug may perminatly affect adolescents when they use it?
???
Or is it just because, man, it's weed!! Instead of, oh, you know, caffine, adderall, nicotine, alcohol ect. ect...
its not a drug dude its an herb! god made it its all good
-
Or as Shakespear put it:
"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
Or, as Martin Luther put it:
"Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”
-
Regarding 1... we need to spend money to find out things we already know in order to change legal status?
2.) Then i guess i'm failing to see why its relevant at all.
1 did we know ? what? and yea the feds are funny like that
-
1 did we know ? what? and yea the feds are funny like that
It's pretty much common knowledge that mind altering drugs alter your mind in negative ways, is it not?
-
this one is interesting the adding of a lil schizo to the study is not surprising though some of the results were. and the longer term effects
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teen-pot-use-could-hurt-brain-memory-new-research-suggests-f2D11741988
-
It's pretty much common knowledge that mind altering drugs alter your mind in negative ways, is it not?
i've not seen/felt that across the board particularly with hallucinogens or at least past the 48 hours post excursion
-
Regarding the tragic CO story: Blaming THC for the man's horrendous actions is akin to blaming guns for adam lanza's even more horrendous actions. As stated, and numerous studies have shown, THC has less negative side effects than many, perhaps even most, legal drugs. Hell, it's much easier to OD on aspirin than it is MJ. Caffeine is harder on a person's body than MJ, and caffeine has a rather mild effect on the body. A body experiences withdrawal symptoms from caffeine, none from MJ. MJ is similar to milk, or butter, or pizza for that matter: it's enjoyable to ingest, there are negligible side effects, there are essentially no negative lingering after effects, and no withdrawal symptoms. In fact, I'm pretty sure regular use of butter has more long-term consequences than MJ.
Personally, I don't understand the opposition to MJ. Like anything else, follow the money. Who benefits from having a wildly popular substance banned?
-
Personally, I don't understand the opposition to MJ. Like anything else, follow the money. Who benefits from having a wildly popular substance banned?
Marihuana is the most dangerous drug of all... specifically because it's NOT dangerous! :laugh: (That was supposed to be a Dr. Strangelove-esque joke, but I think it might be true and the real question is, dangerous to whom?)
-
Marihuana is the most dangerous drug of all... specifically because it's NOT dangerous! :laugh: (That was supposed to be a Dr. Strangelove-esque joke, but I think it might be true and the real question is, dangerous to whom?)
I guess you could say it's insidious because it's not dangerous. But, honestly alcohol is much more insidious, in my experience.
-
Regarding the tragic CO story: Blaming THC for the man's horrendous actions is akin to blaming guns for adam lanza's even more horrendous actions. As stated, and numerous studies have shown, THC has less negative side effects than many, perhaps even most, legal drugs. Hell, it's much easier to OD on aspirin than it is MJ. Caffeine is harder on a person's body than MJ, and caffeine has a rather mild effect on the body. A body experiences withdrawal symptoms from caffeine, none from MJ. MJ is similar to milk, or butter, or pizza for that matter: it's enjoyable to ingest, there are negligible side effects, there are essentially no negative lingering after effects, and no withdrawal symptoms. In fact, I'm pretty sure regular use of butter has more long-term consequences than MJ.
Personally, I don't understand the opposition to MJ. Like anything else, follow the money. Who benefits from having a wildly popular substance banned?
have you read the story of what happened? and in particular what aspect of edible products is a concern here?
-
have you read the story of what happened? and in particular what aspect of edible products is a concern here?
Do you realize that THC is the active component of MJ and hash?
-
I am sorry. Did you miss the part about the potency of edible products and the problems when the legal limits are exceeded? And by what amount they are being exceeded?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Oh. Is that what you were referring to? I couldn't tell, since you didn't actually, you know, refer to it . . .
-
Oh. Is that what you were referring to? I couldn't tell, since you didn't actually, you know, refer to it . . .
in particular what aspect of edible products is a concern here
-
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-marijuana-20140423,0,3208786.story
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/3/2/e000904.full
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/3/2/e000638.full
I would type more about this, but the crushing chest pain right now is taking up all of my attention.....
-
But but but
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-marijuana-20140423,0,3208786.story
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/3/2/e000904.full
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/3/2/e000638.full
I would type more about this, but the crushing chest pain right now is taking up all of my attention.....
I would respond to this in a presumably reasonable manner, including mentioning the fact that studies of the efficacy versus dangers associated with MJ use is difficult due to the fact it's illegal, but I won't; because I'm tired of responses along the lines of "nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah."
-
Or another response could be that this initial study shows a possible correlation, but due to the lack of controls and possible other confounding variables, cannot be used yet to draw a causal link. But it will be interesting to see what further research brings.
-
Or another response could be that this initial study shows a possible correlation, but due to the lack of controls and possible other confounding variables, cannot be used yet to draw a causal link. But it will be interesting to see what further research brings.
No, not really.
Because one side in this debate has conceeded that pot is harmful, even many times more harmful than it actually may be, even if only for the sake of argument.
We are arguing that the War on Drugs is worse than whatever harm might come from pot, meth, cocaine... etc. Because all that said war seems to accomplish is to drive up prices, which incentivizes crime and violence, or pushes addicts/users to seek out alternatives that may be even worse than what was originally banned.
The other side of the debate is going to just keep on persisting in dropping web links to articles about pot being harmful. Which is simply arguing at cross purposes.
-
Or another response could be that this initial study shows a possible correlation, but due to the lack of controls and possible other confounding variables, cannot be used yet to draw a causal link. But it will be interesting to see what further research brings.
I agree that further research will be interesting. Possibly even hilarious for those doing the research . . .
The abstract does a good job of pointing out the numerous and well-documented medicinal benefits, even going so far as to state "the role of medical marijuana is indisputable in patients suffering from chronic, debilitating pain." It does however raise the concern that recreational use may lead to serious issues. Determining that a health issue is related to MJ use is impossible if the patient experiencing the issue doesn't admit to using it recreationally, which is likely if there are legal repercussions to the admittance. Further study is needed, which can only be facilitated by "de-stigmatizing" the substance.
I got a chuckle that one of the issues the abstract points out is "higher caloric intake." Although an increase in appetite is no laughing matter for those undergoing chemotherapy, one of the many beneficial uses of MJ.
-
We are arguing that the War on Drugs is worse than whatever harm might come from pot, meth, cocaine... etc. Because all that said war seems to accomplish is to drive up prices, which incentivizes crime and violence, or pushes addicts/users to seek out alternatives that may be even worse than what was originally banned.
Very much this.
For me, it isn't about pot being harmless, or even a net positive. Whatever the case for or against pot as a pharmaceutical or recreational drug, the war against drugs does more harm for everyone than the drugs themselves, which have not exactly become unavailable due to the war that exists ostensibly to eliminate them.
-
I have to wonder if the drug warriors somehow skipped elementary school American history, or if their textbooks just didn't discuss Prohibition?
-
I agree that further research will be interesting. Possibly even hilarious for those doing the research . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjd74gzMAKU
[popcorn]
-
No, not really.
Because one side in this debate has conceeded that pot is harmful, even many times more harmful than it actually may be, even if only for the sake of argument.
We are arguing that the War on Drugs is worse than whatever harm might come from pot, meth, cocaine... etc. Because all that said war seems to accomplish is to drive up prices, which incentivizes crime and violence, or pushes addicts/users to seek out alternatives that may be even worse than what was originally banned.
The other side of the debate is going to just keep on persisting in dropping web links to articles about pot being harmful. Which is simply arguing at cross purposes.
I don't disagree with you on the War on Drugs. But as someone who works in healthcare, I am keenly interested in the valid medical literature that shows either good or ill associated with tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, salt or whatever is commonly used by our patient population. Because it can be relevant in patient treatment. Some people may choose to believe only literature showing good, and some people may choose to believe only literature showing ill, but in healthcare, you really should be considering both sides from a therapeutic standpoint and have the literature and expert consensus guiding your treatment decisions accordingly.
-
I don't disagree with you on the War on Drugs. But as someone who works in healthcare, I am keenly interested in the valid medical literature that shows either good or ill associated with tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, salt or whatever is commonly used by our patient population. Because it can be relevant in patient treatment. Some people may choose to believe only literature showing good, and some people may choose to believe only literature showing ill, but in healthcare, you really should be considering both sides from a therapeutic standpoint and have the literature and expert consensus guiding your treatment decisions accordingly.
Having research results can also help people make informed decisions regarding lifestyle choices. Just like alcohol, tobacco, salt, butter, jumping out of airplanes, or what-have-you.
-
Yes, but the fact is the currently is no unbiased research. First, it's bad for you, then it's good for you, then it's both good and bad.
What's that old saying? The dose makes the poison.
Which I take to mean: "Everything in moderation".
-
Having research results can also help people make informed decisions regarding lifestyle choices. Just like alcohol, tobacco, salt, butter, jumping out of airplanes, or what-have-you.
^^^^^ this in spades not to be confused with the usual garbage from both sides of the bong (the side with the lighter and the side with the handcuffs)
well-documented medicinal benefits,
this cannot be i heard it asserted that they don't allow research into the benefits
-
One of the drugs I was offered while on Chemo was Dronabinol to combat the nausea/vomiting and to increase my appetite.
All the bene's of medical MJ without the nasty side effects (tar, etc. in the lungs). Been around and on the market for quite a while. (It's THC in a pill.)
So there's medical MJ in an easy to swallow pill. But the fact it exists, but the medical MJ crowd ignores and down plays it and wants to smoke it instead simply proves they were (and are) a false flag operation. And why I think they are FOS. If you want to smoke it to get high, then say so, but don't try to sell it on it's snake oil properties.
I don't care what you stick into your body and who or what you do it with. But DO NOT ask me to clean up your mess, support your *expletive deleted*ss, or pay for your meals, drugs and housing. Smoke until there's no O2 left in your room, I personally don't give a *expletive deleted*it.
Take responsibility for what you do and don't do.
-
Responsibility?! Dude you're harshing my mellow
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
One of the drugs I was offered while on Chemo was Dronabinol to combat the nausea/vomiting and to increase my appetite.
All the bene's of medical MJ without the nasty side effects (tar, etc. in the lungs). Been around and on the market for quite a while. (It's THC in a pill.)
So there's medical MJ in an easy to swallow pill. But the fact it exists, but the medical MJ crowd ignores and down plays it and wants to smoke it instead simply proves they were (and are) a false flag operation. And why I think they are FOS. If you want to smoke it to get high, then say so, but don't try to sell it on it's snake oil properties.
Did THC pills work as well as MJ?
-
Synthetic cannibinoids have a demonstrated track record as less effective, and causing more side effects.
-
Not trying to give ya a hard time but would love to read the stuff on the synthetics.. its been an area of interest for decades
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
One of the drugs I was offered while on Chemo was Dronabinol to combat the nausea/vomiting and to increase my appetite.
All the bene's of medical MJ without the nasty side effects (tar, etc. in the lungs). Been around and on the market for quite a while. (It's THC in a pill.)
So there's medical MJ in an easy to swallow pill. But the fact it exists, but the medical MJ crowd ignores and down plays it and wants to smoke it instead simply proves they were (and are) a false flag operation. And why I think they are FOS. If you want to smoke it to get high, then say so, but don't try to sell it on it's snake oil properties.
I don't care what you stick into your body and who or what you do it with. But DO NOT ask me to clean up your mess, support your *expletive deleted*, or pay for your meals, drugs and housing. Smoke until there's no O2 left in your room, I personally don't give a *expletive deleted*.
Take responsibility for what you do and don't do.
Amen.
I also think the crime reduction resulting from legalization claim is overstated as well. There might be a decrease initially, but in the long run, those who lose their easy income from selling illegal drugs will find something else illicit to make money from rather than finding a real job.
-
Synthetic cannibinoids have a demonstrated track record as less effective, and causing more side effects.
Mmmmm, no. Actually the THC is the exact same at what's in MJ. Chemistry is Chemistry and per my oncologist many of the other cancer patients found it easier to *ingest* then to light up. He can also adjust the dosage to meet the patients needs. They also report positive results. Now he wasn't a fan of smoking MJ simply because the side effects of smoking were more detrimental (increase propensity for lung cancer due to the amount of carcinogens in the smoking of MJ).
I passed on both. I was taking enough stuff that the thought of adding one more drug would have been a bridge too far.
-
So there's medical MJ in an easy to swallow pill. But the fact it exists, but the medical MJ crowd ignores and down plays it and wants to smoke it instead simply proves they were (and are) a false flag operation. And why I think they are FOS. If you want to smoke it to get high, then say so, but don't try to sell it on it's snake oil properties.
No, that does not prove they are a false flag operation.
-
Nor disprove fos
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Mmmmm, no. Actually the THC is the exact same at what's in MJ. Chemistry is Chemistry and per my oncologist many of the other cancer patients found it easier to *ingest* then to light up. He can also adjust the dosage to meet the patients needs. They also report positive results. Now he wasn't a fan of smoking MJ simply because the side effects of smoking were more detrimental (increase propensity for lung cancer due to the amount of carcinogens in the smoking of MJ).
I passed on both. I was taking enough stuff that the thought of adding one more drug would have been a bridge too far.
I did some digging all the negative stuff I found was for recreational stuff ie spice in all its liberty loving carnations
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
So let's see ... I can legally grow belladonna in my garden but not maryjane ...? =|
-
So let's see ... I can legally grow belladonna in my garden but not maryjane ...? =|
Don't you live in montana?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Don't you live in montana?
Yeah, it's probably too cold and dry here for Deadly Nightshade =|
-
>Amen.
I also think the crime reduction resulting from legalization claim is overstated as well. There might be a decrease initially, but in the long run, those who lose their easy income from selling illegal drugs will find something else illicit to make money from rather than finding a real job.<
Lawbreakers will remain lawbreakers? Say it ain't so!
-
>Amen.
I also think the crime reduction resulting from legalization claim is overstated as well. There might be a decrease initially, but in the long run, those who lose their easy income from selling illegal drugs will find something else illicit to make money from rather than finding a real job.<
Lawbreakers will remain lawbreakers? Say it ain't so!
Street level drug dealers and lookouts/couriers/holders don't even make half of Federal Minimum Wage on average. Shows how unbelievably trapped they are by short-term thinking, and incredibly unrealistic perceptions of risk/reward. It's no better than the fantasy of being a professional ball-player or a commercially successful rapper.
Might as well sell Amway or Herbalife.
-
I also think the crime reduction resulting from legalization claim is overstated as well. There might be a decrease initially, but in the long run, those who lose their easy income from selling illegal drugs will find something else illicit to make money from rather than finding a real job
Same with politicians too, I suppose =(
-
Heard about a guy who had a whole bagful of pot leaves he got from a friend. He said that the leaves are not much for smoking. He put the entire pile along with a bit of water into his blender and made a mash out of it. Then he mixed it up with the fixins for brownies and baked 'em. He said he was walking around behind the little animals for several hours after eating one of the brownies. He's a guy who's smoked pot for years and said he'd never had a buzz so intense.
-
kicking in doors and killing people/dogs because plants are growing is exactly why this country was founded! those dang heathens were also half nekkid!
somebody has to tell people what to because if we don't have the .gov controlling every aspect of our lives, racist will drag children by chaining them to their pickup trucks & straight white christian men will vote for woman's suffrage!
Plus polar bears will drown because they don't have ice tea due to global warming. [popcorn]
-
kicking in doors and killing people/dogs because plants are growing is exactly why this country was founded! those dang heathens were also half nekkid!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Frederick
-
Ayup... that is SO much more acceptable than folks getting buzzed! After all, those lawless folks would just find some other crime to break!
-
Most of the violent acts committed are over things directly related to their illegal activity, (turf wars, and keeping "order" and control) if the activity is legal their criminal activity level would drop. Al Capone was a bad guy and prone to violence, but he mostly killed because of outside factors such as his rivals, and his desire to expand his turf. Without the alcohol war he would not have actually committed most of his crimes.
Outside of prohibition (drugs or alcohol) what has had such a high violence rate? I am guessing nothing.
-
interesting article especially the part about prices http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/apr/13/colorado-adjusts-to-marijuana-centennial-states-ex/
-
Friends around the campfire, and everybody's high ....
=D
-
Might as well sell Amway or Herbalife.
A man has to have some respect for himself...
-
Not nearly so many liquor retailers shooting up competitors these days as when ethyl alcohol was verboten.
I would wager more ethyl is consumed per capita, though. I think the trade-off is worth it.
As long as I can still ridicule, hold up as a terrible warning, and in general treat those whose actions I deem objectionable as pariahs, I say legalize it all and let Darwin sort it out.
I generally avoid those with overtly abuse alcohol already. Adding folks who overtly (ab)use MJ or other drugs for recreation and self-befuddlement is no great stretch.
-
If MJ is at all bad, the tort lawyers will have a hey-day with legal pot :P
-
I am most amused that legal pot is more pricey still. Folks getting rich . And that has always been the goal
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Most of the violent acts committed are over things directly related to their illegal activity, (turf wars, and keeping "order" and control) if the activity is legal their criminal activity level would drop. Al Capone was a bad guy and prone to violence, but he mostly killed because of outside factors such as his rivals, and his desire to expand his turf. Without the alcohol war he would not have actually committed most of his crimes.
Capone wasn't involved in running booze because he was an aficionado of fine spirits, the fact that it was illegal made it very lucrative. He was a thug that likely would have found another criminal enterprise, had Prohibition not been enacted.
-
Friends around the campfire, and everybody's high ....
"All my friends and my old lady sit and pass the pipe around ..."