Can we talk about marijuana?

[spade2you]

So you are saying both Harvard and Yale university are both lying about their findings? These are the TOP ivy league colleges where most of our president's and leaders came from.

I think the studies are full of it, as are you. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell what side you're on and your kind will tell me that it cures cancer.

I work at a major univeristy hospital with a very large cancer research center. We're obviously doing thinngs wrong because we're not using marijuana. Stupid researchers.

 

[Schlyder]

But that study found there can be risks associated with usage....and was a study on legislative framework more than medical framework.

What do you think they based their conclusions on? There are quoted medical studies in that report. As well as addiction studies, and crime studies, etc etc.
They didn't just sit around over coffee and write the damn thing. That was a 2 year Committee. With witnesses appearing in person before the Senate Committee. Probably one of the most comprehensive and trustworthy reports on the topic. As I would hardly think there was any bias in favour of cannabis in the findings. You could probably be safe to assume though there was a bias against cannabis from the Senate Committee.

Life is full of risks.

 

[Von Felgenhauer]

I think the studies are full of it, as are you. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell what side you're on and your kind will tell me that it cures cancer.

I work at a major univeristy hospital with a very large cancer research center. We're obviously doing thinngs wrong because we're not using marijuana. Stupid researchers.

The only thing I'm full of are facts and studies proving my point. Why don't you actually take a second step back and look. If its not medicinal why were most treatments thc based before Harry anslinger decided to make a name for himself and make it illegal?

 

[spade2you]

If that's the case then what's the point of arguing over facts?

Believe half of what you read, half of half what other people say, and only what you've seen with your own eyes.

I still get a laugh that when people claim it IMPROVES lung function. Anyone who has dealt with heavy and long term smokers of the reefer know this isn't the case.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I think the studies are full of it, as are you. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell what side you're on and your kind will tell me that it cures cancer.

I work at a major univeristy hospital with a very large cancer research center. We're obviously doing thinngs wrong because we're not using marijuana. Stupid researchers.

And there's the issue. You think - you don't know.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Believe half of what you read, half of half what other people say, and only what you've seen with your own eyes.

I still get a laugh that when people claim it IMPROVES lung function. Anyone who has dealt with heavy and long term smokers of the reefer know this isn't the case.

I don't think a single person here has claimed that it improves lung function Heck, I don't think anyone here has even claimed that there are no negatives to it. What has been said is that there can be some (possible) positives to its use, and at the very least it is no more dangerous than alcohol (a legal drug).

 

[KwinS]

And there's the issue. You think - you don't know.

Just like you.

 

[Munjibunga]

So you are saying both Harvard and Yale university are both lying about their findings? These are the TOP ivy league colleges where most of our president's and leaders came from.

That's not necessarily a great endorsement for Yale and Harvard.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I only believe facts that are presented. Not one of you nay Sayers have been able to find one shred of evidence that marijuana is bad except for the actual smoking of a burning plant. It must be nice to think one way and then shut your mind off completely. At least us pot smokers can keep an open mind and look at both sides.

Open minded aye?

Have you read my posts in this thread?

I recall earlier today disputing a point with you, but you just gave up and forgot about it (you and your fabricated understanding of how the body works).

What point would there be in showing you evidence when you have a minimal understanding in human biology?

So you are saying both Harvard and Yale university are both lying about their findings? These are the TOP ivy league colleges where most of our president's and leaders came from.

People should consider the manner in which work is published. Assuming research is good, simply based on the university name, is pretty crass.

The only thing I'm full of are facts and studies proving my point. Why don't you actually take a second step back and look. If its not medicinal why were most treatments thc based before Harry anslinger decided to make a name for himself and make it illegal?

Facts? Facts like your lack of understanding of the human nervous systems?

Oh, and ye'olde treatments, the kind of thing we refer to as Snake Oil . . .


I'm very much on the fence and not bothered either way in the weed argument. What I'm not on the fence about is people spreading false information to try and verify their own convictions. You clearly came into this thread with a heavy bias and agenda.

 

[spade2you]

I don't think a single person here has claimed that it improves lung function Heck, I don't think anyone here has even claimed that there are no negatives to it. What has been said is that there can be some (possible) positives to its use, and at the very least it is no more dangerous than alcohol (a legal drug).

I think Von did in another thread, but it may have been another pothead who has a million and one studies from the interw3b.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's that bad. I just don't think it's that good. As a licensed health care practicioner, it's forbidden for me. My opinion is that I don't wanna lose my income.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Just like you.

I never claimed to know anything past what my own experiences can say. However, when someone claims that all these case studies that support legalization of the substance (including ones done by a senate committee) are all biased fabrications and yet they can't provide ones for their own beliefs and reasons for keeping it illegal I --->

 

[Von Felgenhauer]

I never claimed to know anything past what my own experiences can say. However, when someone claims that all these case studies that support legalization of the substance (including ones done by a senate committee) are all biased fabrications and yet they can't provide ones for their own beliefs and reasons for keeping it illegal I --->

+1 how is it everything we say and find is propaganda while everything negative you guys say should be taken for the absolute truth?

 

[dj150888]

+1 how is it everything we say and find is propaganda while everything negative you guys say should be taken for the absolute truth?

When you present supposed facts, that are incorrect, and try to argue them in biochemical terms, with zero comprehension of the actual biochemistry involved, it undermines any authority your interpretation of other studies would have.

 

[Lee H]

I am not going to specify which college, because they have gotten enough flack over it...but one of the major medical colleges did a study on driving under the influence of marijuana, and concluded that being under the influence of marijuana had absolutely no effect one one's ability to drive..
Now I am sure we can all see how dangerous this was. Obviously it was disproven, but still it was released, published on NORMAL websites as being factual, pending disproval.
I am not pointing this out to further embarrass or discredit this academy, but only to demonstrate how statistics can be manipulated to suit the best interests of individuals....on both sides of this subject

 

[Lee H]

You only have to obtain a recommendation from a physician to use marijuana for medical purposes. My doctor told me not to register with any govt agency. I keep a separate, hand signed recommendation in my wallet and have on three occasions successfully defended my right to possess my medicine in public. Using it is another story. You pretty much have to be on private property to smoke.

CA assembly bill 1300 now gives local jurisdictions the right to ban possession, sales, cultivation, or even use for medicinal purposes. Make sure you are does not ban it. If they do that referral is worthless as an old sears card . Medical marijuana users are losing rights because of those using the compassionate use act for profit

another place they are losing rights is that they give up their second amendment rights
the form required to purchase any firearm requires that you list any and all illegal drugs On ATF form 4473. Since the federal govt still classifies marijuana as a section one intoxicant, this is a drug for the purposes of firearms ownership. To lie on this form is a felony. If a firearms dealer believes you use marijuana, or even have a recommendation for marijuana, he becomes legally liable, if he sells you a firearm or ammunition. If you are trying to transfer ownership of a gun, he is legally obligated to notify law enforcement about an illegal firearms transfer

 

[Von Felgenhauer]

Ok so if every test study and research is all biased and wrong, why should i believe the ones saying its bad? I'm very willing to listen and read and learn. You guys just cannot come up with actual proof marijuana is harmful. Please prove me wrong cause its an expensive habit, but i really do believe in the healing properties it has, both mentally and physically.

 

[spade2you]

You guys just cannot come up with actual proof marijuana is harmful.

I think most in the medical profession could, however, they're using biased scales, stethoscopes, vital signs, etc. Come to think of it, all of their salaries are paid by the anti-marijuana anti-truth department.

 

[spade2you]

When you present supposed facts, that are incorrect, and try to argue them in biochemical terms, with zero comprehension of the actual biochemistry involved, it undermines any authority your interpretation of other studies would have.

If they put that effort towards a degree instead of trying to post articles from Google University, maybe they could graduate from Yale or Harvard, eh?

 

[Von Felgenhauer]

I think most in the medical profession could, however, they're using biased scales, stethoscopes, vital signs, etc. Come to think of it, all of their salaries are paid by the anti-marijuana anti-truth department.

Well what aabout the medical professionals in the states with medical marijuana? I guess they are all just backwoods hillbillies slinging trees? Give me a break Guy. Just cause you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. This is getting to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster debate all over again.

 

[aborgman]

If you believe that recreational drug use is beneficial to society in any way, you are just plain naive.

I wouldn't necessarily argue beneficial - but the fact that every society that has ever existed in history has used recreational drugs, certainly points to it being a standard part of the human condition.