EPTNCI admits cannabinoids are anti-tumor and anti-cancer - P…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
UisTehSux
United States693 Posts
| ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On April 03 2011 13:38 UisTehSux wrote: So ehh, make StarCraft illegal?I just don't think that we need another substance legalized that, if used irresponsibly, lessens an individuals potential. If everyone was smart enough to maintain control and not use in excesses, than I believe it would be legalized and would not have a problem with it. But when ever my peers talk about legalization of weed, they all fantasize about smoking their brains out and not doing anything for weeks. Aka : Being worthless. Lots of people don't use it responsibly and blow their education for it or something like that? Don't get me started on alcohol really, how often do husbands get high and proceed to beat up their wives then? | ||
|
TreDawg
41 Posts
On April 03 2011 07:59 chonkyfire wrote: go eat 5 grams of weed and find out for yourself. Trust me, I know from experience it can cause acute psychosis I hope you realize exactly how much 5 grams of weed is. In order for one person to get high chances are they aren't smoking any more than 1/10th of a gram. Even when eaten thats still like 3-5x too much for your average person, depending on weight. You should always do your research before putting any chemical into your body, especially when its such an incredibly huge amount. As for the topic, marijuana has been used as a medicine for centuries. Its a shame that all the gov't propaganda against it is blindly believed by so many people who aren't willing to do their own research on the matter. They did the same thing with ecstasy too. Holes in your brain my ass, thats been debunked for a long time and people still believe it. | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 03 2011 13:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Again, do you know what a perfect salt bath is? I'm talking about a hypothetical method that would deprive you of any and all sensory stimulus, I'm talking about perfect theoretical sensory deprivation, no neuron is firing in the perfect situation, you have no thoughts, no sensations. Define false, define true, when is something false? If I believe HuK is going to win MLG but he's not going to? Was that then deluded? 40% of this forum is deluded if HuK doesn't turn out to win it? Do you believe the earth is a sphere, because that's a delusion, it's not, it's actually more of an ovoid shape? Define 'god', define 'being in love', these are all things which are vague, there are several gradations of 'love', people disagree about when people are 'in love', people wonder about themselves if they are in 'in love' or not, these are subjective and vague terms, and don't get me started on 'god'. Surely you have to see that in order to perform healthy science such terms have to be defined rigorously? Also, again, the grey area, where does the line lie. There are some people who have beliefs which are a bit on the edge. Like ehhh, a really good player in Masters who thinks he can become a pro, I mean, is this deluded or not? This is the vague part. Of course we can recognise that anyone in Gold is deluded, but this is a grey area on the edge, maybe he's deluded, maybe he isn't..? No, I'm questioning it because of the Sorites argument which holds that if a continuum exists between two points than they cannot be binary distinct. Which is by the way something that exact sciences use all the time. If some guy A has a cool physical theory which supposes a duality of two groups of whatevers and some other dudes says 'But wait, I can demonstrate the existence of a continuum between an element of group A and one of group B.', then basically the theory is falsified due to being internally contradicting. So basically, the fact that a lot of psychiatrists (definitely not all, many start to recognise that the concept indeed falls to the Sorites argument) still hold on to the believe in 'delusion' despite the existence of a continuum between delusion and sanity would be perceived as irrational and thus 'deluded' by a lot of exact scientists and philosophers. And like I said, a psychiatrist is not able to see the difference between this and coherent higher mathematics or something else fancy. If the average person with no background in it sees analytical philosophers debate or what not it WILL appear to them as complete garbled unfinished sentences with no train of logic to be found to them. An argument which is as silly as it is completely irrelevant, true or not. It's still coherence which will be perceived as coherence by peers but as completely garbled nonsense and flights of ideas to a psychiatrist. lol... I"m not even going to bother responding to any of this. You are just deducing this down to logical fallacies, semantics and skepticism If I told you 2+2=4 you would probably try to convince me it's actually 5 so Philosophy has nothing to do with neuroscience You're entire argument goes like this, X says he's god I say X is delusional you say how do you know X isn't god? maybe you're delusional It's a stupid argument | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On April 03 2011 13:50 chonkyfire wrote: Funny isn't it? Debating with someone mildly educated in a science where any theory gets thrown away at the first sign of logical fallacy?lol... I"m not even going to bother responding to any of this. You are just deducing this down to logical fallacies semantics No, precise definitions, I want precise and objective definitions.skepticism Wot? Scientific scepticism, philosophical scepticism, mereological scepticism? James-Randi-esque 'scepticism', all completely different things?Again, clarify your terms. If I told you 2+2=4 you would probably try to convince me it's actually 5 so No, but I bet you a thousand suns that you have no idea why 2+2=4 and can't explain it either.Note that there are logical systems where this isn't true or where addition cannot be proven to be commutative. Philosophy has nothing to do with neuroscience Philosophy of science has everything to do with neuroscience, and psychiatry has very little to do with neuroscience.If psychiatry was based on neuroscience 95% of DSM-IV would be voided simply because they aren't conditions based on neurology, they are based on culture and perception. Now, people who have been hit on the head and suddenly can't recognise moving objects any more, that's a real case of a neurological disorder, because there is an identifiable neurological area that is damaged in that point which is the same every time. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
So overall: Some parts of cannabis can help deal with cancer and tumors. People with cancer can get medical marijuana cards. The government seems to be getting it right. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On April 03 2011 13:58 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: Funny isn't it? Debating with someone mildly educated in a science where any theory gets thrown away at the first sign of logical fallacy? No, precise definitions, I want precise and objective definitions. Wot? Scientific scepticism, philosophical scepticism, mereological scepticism? James-Randi-esque 'scepticism', all completely different things? Again, clarify your terms. No, but I bet you a thousand suns that you have no idea why 2+2=4 and can't explain it either. Note that there are logical systems where this isn't true or where addition cannot be proven to be commutative. Philosophy of science has everything to do with neuroscience, and psychiatry has very little to do with neuroscience. If psychiatry was based on neuroscience 95% of DSM-IV would be voided simply because they aren't conditions based on neurology, they are based on culture and perception. Now, people who have been hit on the head and suddenly can't recognise moving objects any more, that's a real case of a neurological disorder, because there is an identifiable neurological area that is damaged in that point which is the same every time. Stop this already... It's offtopic enough and you've already made your point: anything is possible and can be argued. Point two: Arguing with you is senseless and idiotic, since this argument is leading nowhere. | ||
|
Onsight
United States6 Posts
On April 03 2011 12:38 chonkyfire wrote: You do realize weed dealers are the reason it didn't pass right? Not really.... It didn't pass because many people in favor of the law are to lazy to go out and vote on it. The majority of California does want marijuana legalized, and I think the votes will reflect that in a couple of years. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
So look at it this way. The reason why these people even exist is because smoking is illegal. You don't see people taking pride in the fact that there raging alcoholics or smoking three packs a days, because smoking and drinking aren't really acts of rebellion anymore, so they aren't socially vindicating, and pot is super accessible. You legalize pot, and I'd stoner culture would probably be less prevalent, not more. Though of course, more people would probably do it, they'd probably do it more casually and it wouldn't really have a "culture" anymore. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
Hello? they both cause lung cancer?? Pot actually is more likely to cause lung cancer due to holding the smoke in the lungs for longer than cigarettes. Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, say researchers, warning of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/01/30/2150087.htm ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm If you want to get your dose of these 'beneficial' ingredients in pot then have it in liquid solution or baked in cookies , don't kid yourself into thinking smoking it is any safer for you than tobacco. | ||
|
Badbiz
United States47 Posts
On April 03 2011 14:33 Shiragaku wrote: People thought cigarettes were not perfectly harmless, but it took 200 years to connect cigarettes with lung cancer. and I hope to God that we are not repeating history when talking about a new type of drug Haha you really think they didn't know that... | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 03 2011 14:39 Badbiz wrote: Haha you really think they didn't know that... Absolutely. When looking back at bloodletting, all of us wonder how the hell we could be that stupid. Similar case with cigs. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
On April 03 2011 09:05 Nizaris wrote: MJ is illegal because powerful lobbies want it to be. Paper, textile and petrol industry lobby would all lose allot of money if it was fully legalized. That's why it got outlawed in the first place. Did you know that before WW2 hemp was the 2nd cash crop in the US? This is true. Did anyone here ever hear about the Ford car made out of hemp? Imagine how much fuel you would save with this lighter material. | ||
|
Aequos
Canada606 Posts
On April 03 2011 13:00 Terrakin wrote: The problem is why are some legal and some illegal? People want the drugs they like legalized because they don't want to have to get arrested/ripped off/or worse, with legalization the government can control it as they do with alcohol/tobacco. The reason I oppose it is that we already have certain drugs legal, and they are legal mainly due to the failure in banning them (see the Prohibition). I personally think that most of them are vastly negative to society, including alcohol and tobacco. Is there a good reason for alcohol being legal and marijuana not? Not really, but that's the choice that the government made, and the choice that we have to abide by in order to be part of the society. If the government suddenly declared that wearing yellow is a crime, it'd be a stupid, pointless law - it would receive a lot of hatred and annoy a lot of people - but it isn't such a great hassle to myself to avoid breaking the law. The same is true of marijuana - it's not like it'll kill people to avoid it and use legal drugs instead. Basically, it has always struck me as odd that despite having perfectly legal methods of sensory alteration, people insist on seeking out the illegal ones. | ||
|
PhiGgoT
Vietnam151 Posts
the legal ones suck | ||
|
Badbiz
United States47 Posts
On April 03 2011 14:58 PhiGgoT wrote: youve obviously never been high the legal ones suck | ||
|
dANiELcanuck
Canada217 Posts
Basically, it has always struck me as odd that despite having perfectly legal methods of sensory alteration, people insist on seeking out the illegal ones. But it doesn't strike you odd that people don't want to pump themselves full of chemicals with side effects worse than the problem they're seeking treatment for in the first place? Find one case of someone dying due to use of cannabis. I'd take my chances in being the first one if it meant I could cure or treat an illness with something that grows out of the ground instead of something that was brewed up in a laboratory by someone wearing a white lab coat. This thread wasn't supposed to be on legal vs illegal or recreation vs medicinal. Maybe there are people you know that this information could help. I know it's hard to believe but there are genuinely good people out there that only want to help others. A somewhat long video of real people claiming it helped them overcome more illnesses than cancer. I grew up a couple hours from these people, they're real people and the stories are real. | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
One of the major factors a psychiatrist considers when deciding whether to diagnose some one with a mental illness is to qualify whether, as a result of their cognitions and behaiviors, this person's mental condition is detrimental to their own life, eg. they cannot maintain a job, their relationships are breaking down, they are at risk of harming themselves or other people, etc. Thus, the point of such systems is to help guide a psychiatrist into formulating a diagnosis so that they may be able to offer treatment to patient X to improve their quality of life. Psychiatry isn't neuroscience, it doesn't seek to come up with chemical explanations to explain why the things observed are occurring. Of course, the two are intimately related, and every psychiatrist has a grounding in neuroscience as well, but there is obviously a distinct difference between the two fields. To argue that there is no strict measurable instrument with which to classify what a "delusion" is, or a "thought disorder" or any other inherent bias you have against the field of psychiatry, and to then use that as a basis to discredit this entire branch of medicine which has shown to be beneficial to countless people's lives, is illogical, and I would argue, irresponsible. To use it as a reason to justify that marijuana is 100% harmless and does not cause in some cases and in some people a long-term impairment in their brains' ability to function, when this has in fact been statistically measured, is ridiculous. | ||
|
Aequos
Canada606 Posts
On April 03 2011 15:03 dANiELcanuck wrote: But it doesn't strike you odd that people don't want to pump themselves full of chemicals with side effects worse than the problem they're seeking treatment for in the first place? Find one case of someone dying due to use of cannabis. I'd take my chances in being the first one if it meant I could cure or treat an illness with something that grows out of the ground instead of something that was brewed up in a laboratory by someone wearing a white lab coat. This thread wasn't supposed to be on legal vs illegal or recreation vs medicinal. Maybe there are people you know that this information could help. I know it's hard to believe but there are genuinely good people out there that only want to help others. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI A somewhat long video of real people claiming it helped them overcome more illnesses than cancer. I grew up a couple hours from these people, they're real people and the stories are real. I did a quick google on it, and people have died due to marijuana. It isn't very common, even when comparing it on a percentage basis. I don't agree that people in lab coats mixing up chemicals are a bad choice - these people are always subject to numerous regulations, and they have developed medicines that greatly benefit us. Just because it grows in the ground, doesn't mean it's going to be safe (numerous plants are even poisonous, and tobacco causes tooth decay). There are really two main reasons that I am against marijuana (as a recreational drug. I have no complaints about people using it medicinally or for long-term pain management on a doctor's perscription): 1) I'm against it because I'm against all drugs, legal or illegal. If the drug is being used for recreational purposes, I find that it tends to be abused or used badly. For every 10, 100, or 1000 people who are able to control their usage of these drugs, there tends to be 1 who cannot. Some people are just not emotionally stable enough, or disciplined enough, to handle freedom to use it. Adding to this is the issue that drugs (and alcohol) are mind-altering in the short term. They inspire people to reckless/poorly considered acts, and this can cause problems when their actions interfere with others. I've acknowledged that alcohol must be in society to prevent rebellion and dissension; I have no wish to add more options for people to abuse. If I could, I'd make most forms of self-destruction illegal, be they tobacco, alcohol, or using a cell phone while driving. 2) I'm against it because people who argue for it tend to be people who already use it. I deeply oppose hypocrisy, and it rarely seems like people who are arguing for marijuana's legalization are free of it's influence themselves. If some law is argued for by people who will not directly benefit from it, I tend to lend it more credence, as I can assume they are arguing out of logic and not preference. (There is an example in the spoiler if you want to read it). + Show Spoiler + Recently, in my home province of British Columbia, Canada, we had a new tax implemented called the HST. The way it works is that instead of having a provincial sales tax of 5% and a government sales tax of 7%, we would have a single tax of 12%. The reason it was opposed is that some goods and services which were previously exempt from one of the two smaller taxes were subjected to the full amount of the HST. The reason I support it, as a taxpayer, is that I have had people who are informed about the issue explain the benefits to me, despite the taxes they must pay. When the government says it's the best thing, I don't believe them, because they benefit the most from it. When someone unrelated tells me it's the best thing, I agree. You are right, I have never tried marijuana - and I probably won't (for the reasons I have stated above). I still don't think that we need it in our society when another option is available. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.marijuanavaporizer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/volcano-vaporizer.jpg)
