|
On April 04 2011 17:10 JamesJohansen wrote:
Contrary to common sense, Cannibas really is an undiscovered fountain of youth that offers cures to nearly everything form alhiezmer's, to heart disease, to chicken pox! The government is trying to suppress this vital knowledge and spread gross lies saying that cannibas is unhealthy and has adverse affects on people.
I actually know someone who tried Cannabis once and after that he became a transsexuall gay who molested children - true story.
|
On April 04 2011 12:14 staplestf2 wrote:
i don't use anything but i do think they should legalize it. Think about how much money they could raise with taxes! i mean come on they could raise so much money and stop spending so much on trying to control it.
Indeed, if they legalize it it won't be because alcohol and tobacco - much more harmless - are legal, but because there are thousands to make selling marijuana.
I mean Law enforcment is a gold mine, but my guess is that cannabis crops could be a whole news industry.
|
...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
|
On April 04 2011 21:05 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 12:14 staplestf2 wrote:
i don't use anything but i do think they should legalize it. Think about how much money they could raise with taxes! i mean come on they could raise so much money and stop spending so much on trying to control it. but my guess is that cannabis crops could be a whole news industry.
I'm guessing you mean new industry. If so you are correct, hemp was the 2nd cash crop in the US before WW2. Hemp, the non-psychoactive version of MJ, got outlawed alongside MJ. It's basically the same plant without the THC.
more info http://www.jimsrepair.com/Essays/Why Congress Outlawed the Hemp Plant.htm
1937 Federal law Bans marijuana:The first 2 copies of the Declaration of Independence were printed on Hemp! Benjamin Franklin used Hemp to start Americas first paper mills. It was once legal and one of the largest crops in the world. The majority of fabrics, lighting oil, medicines, paper, and fiber. Hemp was touted as a billion dollar crop in the 19th century and its unparalleled universality made it a target of other sources. It produced more than 5000 products from its thread and 25000 from its cellulose including dinamite and cellophane.
http://www.mizozo.com/health/03/2011/25/a-brief-history-of-marijuana.html
|
On April 03 2011 11:01 Keitzer wrote:
Medical use = perfectly fine (for me)
Used for *getting high* = waste of time AND money
Seems a bit unfair if you do this for Cannabis but not for Alcohol.
Every time I read threads like this something inside me gets a bit antsy and wants to discuss the subject with actual scientific reports and not those silly monkey tests they did back in the day.
But then I realize this isn't the thread to talk about it and I'm happy where I live.
|
On April 03 2011 11:35 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 11:28 gesgi wrote:On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing. That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact. EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen? Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers. Hmmm.. maybe more than absoultely nothing... Let's say it means very little. Unless it's something like the Framingham. And we know this is nothing like that. And even then, the evidence from the framingham spawned multiple studies, which is actually where it's value relies. You're just interpretating the second statement wrong: 1. It's OK if most of their papers are related to the subject, many people do that. That doesn't mean a conflict of interest doesn't exists and shouldn't be investigated. This has happened tons of times. 2. I'm not saying they DEFINITELY HAVE a conflict of interest, haven't researched that. I'm saying it could be there and should be ruled out. This thing has happened so many times it's crazy. Farmaceutical companies finance studies ALL THE TIME, which make their products seem so much better than the rest. Many times it's not true, and has been proven wrong later on by thorough investigation.
When people say that "one study means nothing", they mean that a study needs to be reproducible or else it is not scientific. The fact that there have been smatterings of experiments suggesting the benefits of marijuana does not prove anything, but it does mean it warrants serious government-sponsored studies (ones that are not backed by lobbyists). The amount of scientific study on the subject is laughable considering the implications and how widespread marijuana usage is.
(other thoughts, not necessarily related to the above poster):
The only reason weed is illegal is because of a cultural movement of the 30's backed by a political smear campaign on marijuana that ignored scientific studies. It used to be a taxed commodity before that, so lets not demonize the effects of weed. For years and years it was a non-issue in this country.
The reason marijuana remains illegal is because of the threat of hemp as an industry. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are lobbyists with an invested interest in keeping weed illegal. They used to fund bogus studies, and while that is less common today, they still point to those bogus studies during arguments (as mentioned before, the study pumping monkeys with 30 blunts worth of weed). The funny thing is that the type of Cannabis that would be used industrially is not viable as a recreational drug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#History
Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has poor fibre quality and is primarily used for production of recreational and medicinal drugs. The major difference between the two types of plants is the appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes, although they can also be distinguished genetically.[14] Oilseed and fibre varieties of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects. Typically, hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while cultivars of Cannabis grown for marijuana can contain anywhere from 6 to over 20%.[15]
People are misinformed on the subject and there are people who want them to remain that way. For example, pharmaceutical companies that produce THC "substitutes" in the lab make LOADS of money from this drug. Its expensive to produce (it takes something like 23 chemical processes) and for some patients it is a necessity to buy. It is morally bankrupt that we want people to break the bank over a drug that can be obtained naturally at a fraction of the cost.
Edit: Also! I forgot to mention prisons! The prison industry is probably the most fucked up industry our government supports. So many private prisons are businesses literally propped up on the amount of prisoners they hold. Marijuana offenses make up a solid portion of people in prisons (I'm looking for the statistic but I can't find one that singles out marijuana users from other drug charges).
I don't want to imply that there is some kind of "conspiracy" going on, but there are a lot of people who have selfish reasons for wanting the ban on marijuana to continue.
|
On April 04 2011 13:58 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:wot? Didn't you said I was full of it the last time?
I was suffering from marijuana induced psychosis at the time, and wasn't understanding what you were trying to say.
Well, the point is, everyone knows that for some people the drugs work, for others they don't, for some, some work, for some none work.
The case that is often put forth is 'What if things like autism or depression or schizophrenia can actually have a billion different causes depending on the person? What if each case of schizophrenia is a neurologically completely different thing which just has superficially similar symptoms?'
Some people would say, for something to be called an illness it must have a single, materialistic, identifiable cause.
This is true. You have to remember though there is no way to cure mental illness. The only thing you can really do is recognize symptoms and attempt to treat it. There are possibly lots of different factors that are involved. A lot of mental illness might just be structural abnormalities causing the brain to operate in ways out of the ordinary. For example, illnesses like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder don't start to develop until early adult hood because the brain is still reaching maturity. Both of those illnesses can be considered psychotic, or I should say have the potential to produce psychotic symptoms. Schizophrenia is obvious, but a manic bipolar person can also begin to lose touch with reality resulting in bizarre behavior.
I don't know people who get these symptoms from MJ seem to be naturally inclined to be some-what angsty and suspicious people. The kind of people who are more prone to a psychosis in general.
I know lots of people who will not smoke marijuana because they genuinely do not like it at all. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was because they had terrible anxiety or paranoia. I also think people really underestimate the power of THC specifically. It's a pretty powerful drug that can really warp your mind, and a sober person observing someone who is faded beyond belief, might consider the high person a little disconnected, but that's just the drug not an illness.
]Might also be the same with psychosis of course?
Maybe people just hunger for MJ when they are about to get psychotic?
This is probably the case. People with illnesses like bipolar disorder/schizophrenia have a way higher substance abuse rate than the rest of the population. Of course "psychotic" people have used marijuana. They've probably used many drugs, and probably abuse alcohol too. It's self medication, and marijuana/alcohol are affordable, easily accessible drugs to self medicate with
|
On April 04 2011 17:19 Rflcrx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 17:10 JamesJohansen wrote:
Contrary to common sense, Cannibas really is an undiscovered fountain of youth that offers cures to nearly everything form alhiezmer's, to heart disease, to chicken pox! The government is trying to suppress this vital knowledge and spread gross lies saying that cannibas is unhealthy and has adverse affects on people. I actually know someone who tried Cannabis once and after that he became a transsexuall gay who molested children - true story.
I had a psychiatrist try to tell me that marijuana causes homosexuality, and he knew a guy who killed himself because he started smoking pot and "turned homosexual" on his wife so he couldn't have sex with her. It was a little out there.
|
So..thats why i'm always happy 
|
United States2263 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote:
...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
|
On April 03 2011 22:44 Romance_us wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 13:37 Romantic wrote:On April 03 2011 13:20 dANiELcanuck wrote:On April 03 2011 12:56 sikyon wrote:
Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized? Because it's our right. Says who? Rights are debatable things. Saying you have a right to something is merely stating your personal opinion unless it is some sort of practical legal discussion. What the hell is your point? Are you trying to imply with a straight face that the right to control your own body is debatable? Are you THAT gung-ho about imposing your own morals onto us? Please spare me; the government does it enough to me already.
Yes, it is debatable, laws are written by humans who debate, and very often the law comes down on the side of you being forced to or not being able to do various things with your body. Should a deadbeat dad be forced to use his body for labor to provide for a child (child support)? That is a clear case of law mandated use of a body; there are thousands of these. You could probably obnoxiously repeat he has a right to use his body however he wants in that case too.
Attempts to generalize legalization of drug use usually fall flat; they cannot really be generalized without a hundred exceptions popping up. Well, attempts to generalize everything to that degree usually fall apart... What we are talking about is a very narrow prohibition of certain behaviors.
The concept of "Imposing my evil Christian morals" (I know you didn't say that, but that version is more common on other subjects in general) is another example of a failed generalization. Most, if not every law involve a moral or ethical judgement that is enforced across everybody. A thief could claim anti-theft laws are everyone else imposing their moral view onto him. Maybe a food manufacturer can be angry that society is imposing food safety laws on his business based on moral thoughts about peoples' rights to clean food or reasonable safety or whatever it is. Libertarians can complain about their negative (liberty) rights conflicting with everyone elses positive (claim) rights.
You are likely not opposed to legally mandated use or forbidden use of a body or imposing morals, you are opposed to this specific law. You could very strongly fall on one side, sure. For example, I am damn near a free speech absolutist when I am not in a fascist mood. Sometimes even when i am in a fascist mood.
The point here is saying you have an abstract right to be able to do one thing or another therefor you are correct is probably not the best path to take. I am trying to help you, I'd like to see the drug war ended too, sort of. Hold on the assumptions. It is just a bad method of convincing people of anything.
Need to leave some room for nuances, man. Ain't going anywhere otherwise.
|
Before you try to label psychiatry, psychiatric diseases and the entire field, please for the love of god just have a peripheral understanding of it...
Reading this thread is like watching two kindergarden kids discussing international politics... Their discussion is a waste of time, filled with wrong "facts", littered with their subjective opinions, backed up by "because my dad says so" and would be hilarious if the risk of someone believing they actually know what they talk about wasn't present...
|
On April 05 2011 05:08 Rotodyne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote:
...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana? Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
?
We do know how marijuana effects the body. The endocannabinoid system was discovered because of cannabis.
|
On April 05 2011 05:08 Rotodyne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote:
...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana? Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts. Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana..
I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
|
Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
|
On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote:
Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
|
On April 05 2011 06:45 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote:
Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is. Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green...
All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity...
EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do....
|
On April 03 2011 07:18 Sufficiency wrote:
What are the side effects of cannabis?
Enjoying music and cartoons like never before, as your just to chill to give a fuck.
:D
Good read OP, bummed me out when I got to the " no medicinal affects if you smoke it" part, looks like its time to switch to brownies.
|
On April 05 2011 06:57 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:45 a176 wrote:On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote:
Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is. Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions. It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green... All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity... EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do....
by your logic, no one should consume any food ever for health benefits as supplements that contain the same vitamins and nutrients can take their place. people obviously don't do that. you're arguing semantics.
the study wasn't outright declaring, SMOKE WEED. the study is illustrating the cannaboids found in cannabis plants may have benefitial health effects. that is all. whether you injest these substances via smoking, vaporization, or pills, whatever.
|
On April 05 2011 07:06 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:57 Ghostcom wrote:On April 05 2011 06:45 a176 wrote:On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote:
Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is. Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions. It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green... All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity... EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do.... by your logic, no one should consume any food ever for health benefits as supplements that contain the same vitamins and nutrients can take their place. people obviously don't do that. you're arguing semantics. the study wasn't outright declaring, SMOKE WEED. the study is illustrating the cannaboids found in cannabis plants may have benefitial health effects. that is all. whether you injest these substances via smoking, vaporization, or pills, whatever.
No he was saying don't use this as an excuse for habitual marijuana use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
