Just stop it. You and people like you give the cause a bad name. If you want to smoke and want people to have the freedom to smoke, then say so. There are plenty of coherent arguments to make that don't rely on pop and fuzzy science.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2790
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Just stop it. You and people like you give the cause a bad name. If you want to smoke and want people to have the freedom to smoke, then say so. There are plenty of coherent arguments to make that don't rely on pop and fuzzy science. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 27 2016 01:07 always_winter wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 26 2016 23:47 Ghostcom wrote: I'm a MD PhD who has published articles concerning clinical trials of pain and somatic consequences of opioids in high-impact international journals. I have, unlike you I suspect, actual experience with getting FDA and DEA approval and running a clinical trial. I also have what qualifies as an expert knowledge on the treatment and research going on in the field of pain, including acute pain, cancer pain, and chronic non-cancer pain allowing me to contextualise what I read with already established facts. Among other things this allows me to understand basic things such as a computer model is not the same as an actual clinical trial (Alzheimer), that less than 1% of animal and ex vivo trials show an actual effect in humans (Cancer), that reducing frequency of attacks is not the same as curing epilepsy (Epilepsy), and that cannabinoids have not shown superiority to other treatment modalities of rheumatoid arthritis (Cochrane did a large review). As someone who also treats patients I can assure you that no conspiracy is in place to keep marijuana illegal. We have been hoping for a new drug since the 80's. To believe otherwise is to believe that.millions of doctors prefer their patients to suffer... You are right, the internet is a wonderful but it does not always prevent you from looking like an idiot - especially not when you presume to know and understand what you talk about without proper education in the field. Or did you think that we spend 7 years twiddling thumbs to become doctors? EDIT: Phone ran out of battery, long live android. Don't get me wrong - I think Cannabis has a potential. It is just nowhere near what you think it is and the potential is not going to be fulfilled anytime soon regardless of legalisation or not. Expertise with A does not correlate to expertise with B (see suppressed correlative, logic, common sense). Cannabis is not an opioid, Cannabis is illegal and gaining approval for Cannabis differs from gaining approval for non-Cannabis. Your expertise with one particular facet of medicine does not qualify you to speak universally, and particularly unilaterally without supporting evidence, on all facets of medicine (see appeal to authority, red herring, logic, specialty, common sense). You going to school one year longer than myself and 90% of the current generation does not qualify you to disregard factual evidence with your own anecdotal evidence (see anecdotal fallacy, logic, common sense). Regarding Alzheimer's: Smoking, vaping, or eating the pot molecules THC and CBD directly effects nerve cell function, reducing chronic brain inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular dysfunction — all the while promoting stability of the human body’s internal environment (homeostasis) and healthy brain cells (neurotrophic support), studies show. “What we found was that not only did the single puff a day reverse the memory impairment but also restarted neurogenesis,” Ohio State University, Gary Wenk told the Seattle Post Intelligencer this year. blog.sfgate.com Regarding bureaucratic blockades: The U.S. government has patented marijuana molecule CBD as a neuroprotectant, evan as it maintains that cannabis is a schedule 1 drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse. The federal drug war is blocking deeper research into cannabis’ impacts on brain disease, Wenk states. Regarding the man's qualifications: faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu Regarding cancer, I'll support exploratory research into one of the most destructive forces on the planet when said research has shown the elimination of cancer cells, regardless of the host. Regarding epilepsy, a reduction of frequency greater than 50% in preliminary trials offers incredible purpose to combat a debilitating disease (see false equivocation, semantics). Regarding a conspiracy, the illegal status of cannabis has greatly inhibited research (see above, and see false dichotomy regarding your ultimatum, logic, common sense). Google. Give it a shot. I take it you have no idea how hard it is to get a MD/PhD or what it entails... I'm a biology major with a relatively heavy research experience (nothing compared to the actual docs and PhD's here of course). My undergraduate background is more than enough to critically assess studies. Opioids and cannabinoids bind to two different classes of receptors, yes, but it doesn't mean that expertise in one means you don't know diddly squat of the other. I went through all this stuff in biochem, drugs & behavior and a couple other classes from different angles. It's like saying someone who is a master Michellin star chef in America can't cook French cuisine with a little advice and practice-- a lot of research experience is very translatable. My favorite professor (who is a member of the NAS) has hopped all across the research landscape during his career. He started off doing pop health and epidemiology computational models right when that started, and now he's on CRISPR-CAS which is gene editing stuff. These sets of data strongly suggest that THC could be a potential therapeutic treatment option for Alzheimer's disease through multiple functions and pathways. From the PubMed article cited. Like I mentioned earlier, it's the equivalent of saying CANCER CURE when it's something that might possibly affect specific pathways. To my knowledge, we aren't even 100% exactly what causes Alzheimer's, so the research could even be barking up the wrong tree. Also calling Alzheimer's the 6th leading cause of death is disingenuous. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On January 27 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote: Pothead science is always funny. I bet it's even funnier while high. Found the square | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 27 2016 01:37 Deathstar wrote: The comparison doesn't make sense. Opioids are abused because it's addictive. Marijuana is not addictive in any way. The only people circumventing legal channels to get a hold of medical marijuana are people who desperately need it IE quality of life matters. ... Or they just like to get high and don't care if they lie to get it. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Noam Chomsky, the noted radical and MIT professor emeritus, said the Republican Party has become so extreme in its rhetoric and policies that it poses a “serious danger to human survival.” “Today, the Republican Party has drifted off the rails,” Chomsky, a frequent critic of both parties, said in an interview Monday with The Huffington Post. “It’s become what the respected conservative political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein call ‘a radical insurgency’ that has pretty much abandoned parliamentary politics.” Chomsky cited a 2013 article by Mann and Ornstein published in Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, analyzing the polarization of the parties. The authors write that the GOP has become “ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Chomsky said the GOP and its presidential candidates are “literally a serious danger to decent human survival” and cited Republicans' rejection of measures to deal with climate change, which he called a “looming environmental catastrophe.” All of the top Republican presidential candidates are either outright deniers, doubt its seriousness or insist no action should be taken -- “dooming our grandchildren,” Chomsky said. "I am not a believer," Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said recently. "Unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather." Trump isn’t alone. Although 97 percent of climate scientists insist climate change is real and caused by human actions, more than half of Republicans in Congress deny mankind has anything to do with global warming. "What they are saying is, let's destroy the world. Is that worth voting against? Yeah," Chomsky said in a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera English's "UpFront." The policies that the GOP presidential candidates and its representatives in Congress support, Chomsky argued, are in “abject service to private wealth and power,” despite “rhetorical posturing” of some, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). GOP proposals would effectively raise taxes on lower-income Americans and reduce them for the wealthy. Chomsky advised 2016 voters to cast their ballots strategically. He said the U.S. is essentially “one-party” system -- a business party with factions called Republicans and Democrats. But, he said, there are small differences between the factions that can make a “huge difference in systems of enormous power” -- like that afforded to the president. Source | ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
I do not hold my opinion as more valid than yours if yours was indeed founded in facts. The issue is that, as explained, you don't actually understand, or rather is unable to contextualise the articles which you are finding which are generally written by journalists who have already "translated" the findings in a way that often is not only imprecise but downright wrong (which you now did again). My schooling gives me that ability when it comes to this field (I know very little to none about e.g. economics and thus would never post as arrogantly as you did in fields outside area of expertise). My work with actually applying for FDA and DEA (as well as IRB) approval for cannabinoid-trials gives me more knowledge on the matter than you (apparently you missed this in your frantic attempt to once again insult me). Oh and for the record, less than 8% of the current generation holds a masters degree with less than 1% holding a PhD degree. That is a far cry from 90% which you postulated in you attempt to insult me. I'm done "arguing" with you. Velr hit the nail on the head when it comes to the discussion concerning legalisation of marijuana. And once again, I literally don't care about whether or not you make recreational marijuana legal. EDIT: And I would be absolutely overjoyed on behalf of my patients if I was proven 100% wrong and cannabis proved to be every bit the wonderdrug you believe it to be. EDIT2: On January 27 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote: And overcrowded jails. You don’t need pot head science about weed being magic to justify legalizing it.. This. | ||
always_winter
United States195 Posts
On January 27 2016 02:06 Ghostcom wrote: My appeal to authority happened after you implied you had extensive knowledge, suggested I went to google, and insulted me, while at the same time demonstrating a complete and utter lack of actual comprehension. I do not hold my opinion as more valid than yours if yours was indeed founded in facts. The issue is that, as explained, you don't actually understand, or rather is unable to contextualise the articles which you are finding which are generally written by journalists who have already "translated" the findings in a way that often is not only imprecise but downright wrong (which you now did again). My schooling gives me that ability when it comes to this field (I know very little to none about e.g. economics and thus would never post as arrogantly as you did in fields outside area of expertise). My work with actually applying for FDA and DEA (as well as IRB) approval for cannabinoid-trials gives me more knowledge on the matter than you (apparently you missed this in your frantic attempt to once again insult me). Oh and for the record, less than 8% of the current generation holds a masters degree with less than 1% holding a PhD degree. That is a far cry from 90% which you postulated in you attempt to insult me. I'm done "arguing" with you. Velr hit the nail on the head when it comes to the discussion concerning legalisation of marijuana. And once again, I literally don't care about whether or not you make recreational marijuana legal. EDIT: And I would be absolutely overjoyed on behalf of my patients if I was proven 100% wrong and cannabis proved to be every bit the wonderdrug you believe it to be. EDIT2: This. Here's my beef: When you say things like "puhhhhlease don't insult my collective intellect," with an implied flip of the hair (possible flick of the wrist), dismissing all marijuana research as unsubstantiated garbage, akin to some kind of strange conspiracy theory you were alluding to before, it triggers something deep in my loins that forces me to respond, albeit on a forum dedicated to a computer game. I don't doubt you're a doctor. I don't doubt you have knowledge of opioids. I do find it strange you're suddenly applying for cannabinoid research, which seems like something which would've lent more strength to your argument previously in place of opioids, but we'll set that aside. Perhaps it's easier for you to bypass bureaucracy wherever you are than it is in the US. The facts are there. They're in the articles. I didn't write them. A second-party journalist didn't write them. They're from the US National Library of Medicine (that lil .gov at the end). If you have conflicting evidence, please share it. As it stands your anecdotal lessons, while riveting, are simply not enough. Recreational use is an entirely different topic, and without getting back into logical fallacies I'll just say it looks bad trying to equate that to medicinal use. Also to the homie referencing his freshman year bio class- why don't you just sit this one out, champ. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Nice ad hom after the entire wall of text about rhetorical fallacy. It's ironic, as is your .gov after crapping on appeal to authority. The point is there are posters here more qualified in some fields than others. Science is one where you're behind others, including me. I'm not a doctor or a PhD, but I've forgotten more biology [in the last month] than you've ever known. ![]() | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
So unless your argument goes beyond "There is stuff out there to support my claim on the internet, check mate," I would give it a rest. If you want to drill down into the specific facts about a specific study with Ghostcom on the topic, that would be different. But right now you are just some dude who did a few google searches arguing with a PHD. | ||
![]()
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On January 27 2016 01:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Breaking: Active Shooter reported at San Diego Naval Medical Center We San Diegans are just feening for something crazy to happen here. Comic Con is a long ways away afterall. | ||
always_winter
United States195 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 27 2016 03:36 always_winter wrote: Glad that's not my argument, then. I'm some dude who provided scholarly evidence disproving a poster's notion marijuana serves no medicinal purpose. He's some dude who says he has a doctorate and is therefore scholarly. You're some dude who doesn't see the difference, and has served a great reminder why one should not attempt discourse of substance on a computer game forum. So you did a google search and then picked the articles that sounded legit or had .gov at the end of the URL? Well done? You confirmed the existence of scholarly articles that agree with you. That isn't really discussing or proving anything, but I guess you win in the arena of the internet: where discussions stay on the surface and confirmation bias wins all arguments. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 27 2016 03:36 always_winter wrote: Glad that's not my argument, then. I'm some dude who provided scholarly evidence disproving a poster's notion marijuana serves no medicinal purpose. He's some dude who says he has a doctorate and is therefore scholarly. You're some dude who doesn't see the difference, and has served a great reminder why one should not attempt discourse of substance on a computer game forum. You presented stuff which turned out to not really be evidence and got lawyer'd (or rather, science'd). Everyone's wrong sometimes and they're right the other times. Ain't no shame in that. The shame would be to disengage. ![]() | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Sadist
United States7189 Posts
I think article is dumb. If people want to complain about emergency managers, fine. But imo it's completely unrelated to the water crisis. People fucked up at several levels for this to happen. Also I'd love to hear what the solution is when cities are hemorrhaging money and can't afford contracts. The EM to my knowledge is allowed to break contracts without necessarily going through bankruptcy. While the EM isn't a great solution I don't see what allowing city governments to keep kicking the can down the road solves. | ||
| ||