First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Prop 19 has failed
47115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/3/10


I just watched a video, and I think what you said is true....but the video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpDuAwl_1_g&feature=related

kinda said that the DEA only has like 5500 people....and the state doesnt neccessarily HAVE to enforce it. Pretty sure there is some debate on that particular issue so I wouldnt 100 percent assume that.


Posted 11/3/10 , edited 11/3/10
Pot's not unhealthy, it actually has more medical and health benefits... People are going to abuse ANY substance... Yet pot is so much healthier than things like alcohol and cigarettes, they need to legalize it.

Just say get stoned responsibly in ads, like we do with alcohol.

Let me repeat this first one with facts from a drug fact site... Drug related deaths and otherwise.

Tobacco 435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000 1
Microbial Agents 75,0001
Toxic Agents 55,0001
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,3471
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,0002
Suicide 30,6223
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,0001
Homicide 20,3084
Sexual Behaviors 20,0001
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,0001, 5
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,6006

Marijuana 0

WHY IS IT ILLEGAL, SHOULD WE NOT MAKE CIGARETTES, ALCOHOL, SEX, AND PHYSICAL INACTIVITY ILLEGAL SEEING AS THEY ACTUALLY KILLY PEOPLE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, CAFFEINE IN COFFEE AND POP KILLS MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!



Still think it's worth keeping it illegal at the cost of a giant sinkhole of debt? The pros outweigh the cons no matter what, all legalizing will do "Bad", is make people potheads, but you know what, illegal or legal, people will be potheads whether there's a law strapped to it or not. The law just incites wasted money, police work, trafficking violence, and hatred.

One of my friends is dead because of recurring seizures... If we would have known pot could help prevent it, or if health benefits were made more publicly aware, would that be so bad? No instead to keep it illegal, everybody hides the facts and benefits in order to vilinize it to keep it illegal, so even using it as medical treatment is sparse unless you already know about the benefits...
Posted 11/4/10

varnlestoff wrote:

Pot's not unhealthy, it actually has more medical and health benefits... People are going to abuse ANY substance... Yet pot is so much healthier than things like alcohol and cigarettes, they need to legalize it.

Just say get stoned responsibly in ads, like we do with alcohol.



Still think it's worth keeping it illegal at the cost of a giant sinkhole of debt? The pros outweigh the cons no matter what, all legalizing will do "Bad", is make people potheads, but you know what, illegal or legal, people will be potheads whether there's a law strapped to it or not. The law just incites wasted money, police work, trafficking violence, and hatred.

One of my friends is dead because of recurring seizures... If we would have known pot could help prevent it, or if health benefits were made more publicly aware, would that be so bad? No instead to keep it illegal, everybody hides the facts and benefits in order to vilinize it to keep it illegal, so even using it as medical treatment is sparse unless you already know about the benefits...
And you sir just contradicted yourself with your own statement.

Also, your "medical" marijuana benefits are completely bogus claims and misinformation, and here's why:

1) Upon further research, although THC in marijuana does suppress the excess of serotonin in the brain, which is the cause of headache. However since serotonin itself acts as a mood regulator in the brain, and the brain produces excess amount of it in order to combat stress and tension, the real cure all solution is to avoid unnecessary stressful and tense situations. Not marijuana:

Serotonin and Other Neurotransmitter Levels. Neurotransmitters are chemical messengers in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter (chemical messenger in the brain) that is important for sleep, well-being, and other factors that affect quality of life. Abnormalities in serotonin levels have been observed in both tension-type and migraine headache sufferers. Altered levels of other neurotransmitters, importantly dopamine and stress hormones, also occur with migraine and tension-type headaches, and could trigger the events in the brain leading to migraine.(citation)

2) Although it's true that marijuana does slow down some forms of tumor growth, there are healthier alternatives that work even better.

3) The use of synthetic THC is in conjunction to treat cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy only, which the practice itself causes nausea.

4) Well the latest research isn't all that promising:

Marijuana does not appear to improve memory or reverse effects of Alzheimer's disease, according to results of a University of British Columbia study performed on mice bred to have genetic mutations for the disease.

"We are a little surprised, actually. Originally, we were hoping there would be a positive effect, based on previous research," said Dr. Weihong Song, the Canada Research Chair in Alzheimer's disease and a UBC psychiatry professor.

Song said in an interview that the experiments were meant to validate research going back about six years that showed that marijuana might protect brain cells from injurious inflammation and even promote regeneration of brain neurons. That got scientists excited about the possibility of a benefit, since the brains of Alzheimer's patients shrink as cells die off.

The six researchers, affiliated with the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, used a synthetic derivative of cannabis compounds called HU210 which is 100 to 800 times more potent than marijuana consumed by humans. In experiments in which mice were initially taught how to get to a desired location in a maze, the mice that received high dose HU210 did no better than control subject mice who were administered no drug or those given a low dose.

The study was performed on a total of nearly 100 mice — a third which received a high-dose drug injection, a third which received a lower dose and a control group which didn't get the drug but still had a sham injection to produce the same conditions. Placed in a circular pool divided in four sections, mice were initially conditioned or taught where a platform was situated to avoid swimming in the water.

Mice that received the drug were no better at remembering where to go. Indeed, all three groups performed about the same.

After the experiments, mice were killed and their brains were examined. Post mortems showed that those receiving the highest dose of the drug had fewer brain cells, pointing to a detrimental effect of marijuana. But even lower doses of the drug impaired learning and memory.

Song concedes it's too early to conclude that medicinal marijuana won't be useful in Alzheimer's disease, especially since the study, published in the journal Current Alzheimer Research, was conducted in mice and using high doses.

"But what we can say at this point, is that the previous research done in rats and mice on the (beneficial) effects of synthetic cannabinoids is not necessarily applicable to humans. We can't place too much hope on the benefits of marijuana in Alzheimer's disease at this point," he said, referring to earlier work that may not surprise marijuana users who have experienced the blunting effects of the drug on their short or long-term memories.(citation)

5) Once again, false advertisement:

The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on IOP in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours.

The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma, a chronic disease requiring proven and effective treatment.

Currently, marijuana is designated as a Schedule I drug (drugs which have a high potential for abuse and no medical application or proven therapeutic value).

The only marijuana currently approved at the Federal level for medical use is Marinol, a synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most active component of marijuana. It was developed as an antiemetic (an agent that reduces nausea used in chemotherapy treatments), which can be taken orally in capsule form. The effects of Marinol on glaucoma are not impressive.

To date, no studies have shown that marijuana— or any of its approximately 400 chemical components—can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market.(citation)

6) Still false advertisement:

Some people who can't tolerate the side-effects associated with standard medications to treat epilepsy -- from headaches and nausea to drowsiness and cognitive dysfunction -- turn to marijuana or synthetic forms of the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, THC, to reduce the severity of seizures.

While previous studies had identified no adverse effects, new research led by Dr. Michael Corcoran at the University of Saskatchewan unexpectedly found that the pot compound can actually cause seizures in laboratory rats.

"What we found was contrary to our expectation in that although after a single injection there could be a suppression of seizure, when we gave the drug more than once to the rats over a period of days, their seizures actually got worse," Corcoran, a professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology, said Tuesday from Saskatoon.

Researchers are able to simulate epilepsy in rats through a process called kindling, in which tiny bursts of low-voltage current are administered over time. With repetition, the electrical discharge spreads from brain cell to brain cell, eventually creating a kind of firestorm of neural activity that resembles what occurs in human epilepsy.

Corcoran's team found that kindling gets worse when rats are injected with high doses of the marijuana-like drug. The doses were high enough that the rats also ended up stoned: some were immobile, had changes in muscle tone and their ability to walk a beam -- a measure of intoxication -- was affected, he said.(citation)

7) Yet better treatment with EGG.

8) The actual result is doubtful.

9) Anecdotal? You're willing to trust pseudoscience regarding women's health issue, really? Really?

10) Since it's not even proven that marijuana can actually treat seizure nor MS with relative success, this one is a bust by default.
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:

Pot's not unhealthy, it actually has more medical and health benefits... People are going to abuse ANY substance... Yet pot is so much healthier than things like alcohol and cigarettes, they need to legalize it.

Just say get stoned responsibly in ads, like we do with alcohol.



Still think it's worth keeping it illegal at the cost of a giant sinkhole of debt? The pros outweigh the cons no matter what, all legalizing will do "Bad", is make people potheads, but you know what, illegal or legal, people will be potheads whether there's a law strapped to it or not. The law just incites wasted money, police work, trafficking violence, and hatred.

One of my friends is dead because of recurring seizures... If we would have known pot could help prevent it, or if health benefits were made more publicly aware, would that be so bad? No instead to keep it illegal, everybody hides the facts and benefits in order to vilinize it to keep it illegal, so even using it as medical treatment is sparse unless you already know about the benefits...
And you sir just contradicted yourself with your own statement.

Also, your "medical" marijuana benefits are completely bogus claims and misinformation, and here's why:


I don't understand how what was highlighted in red is a contradiction unless you can directly link the existence of potheads to medical marijuana as something other than an irrelevant relationship... The matter is that awareness is not promoted enough because of the negative stigma that laws have attached to being a stoner.



Also this at the very least is not a pseudoscience , this is a fact of life.

Also very good sources for citation, but upon reading the counter argument against pot helping seizures, the tests have been primarily with rodents, while tests indicating that it is actually beneficial is directly studied through human patients. http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/litigators/medical/conditions/epilepsy.cfm There are many people with epilepsy and seizures that would attest to the benefits of medical marijuana, but a rodent can't really tell you aside from chart facts being based off an entirely different species.

"But "what our work suggests is that seizures that originate in the forebrain, particularly in the temporal lobe, probably are not the best candidate type of epileptic seizures to be treating with marijuana-like drugs."

^ Leads me to think that certain cases will be beneficial, and some would not. Being that to safely treat it, the type of epilepsy/seizure you have would need to be studied to see whether marijuana is right for you. In the worst case scenario, this would only mean the 'some' people would not get benefits from smoking pot.

False advertisements? Or differing results through very different research studies?
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:

Pot's not unhealthy, it actually has more medical and health benefits... People are going to abuse ANY substance... Yet pot is so much healthier than things like alcohol and cigarettes, they need to legalize it.

Just say get stoned responsibly in ads, like we do with alcohol.



Still think it's worth keeping it illegal at the cost of a giant sinkhole of debt? The pros outweigh the cons no matter what, all legalizing will do "Bad", is make people potheads, but you know what, illegal or legal, people will be potheads whether there's a law strapped to it or not. The law just incites wasted money, police work, trafficking violence, and hatred.

One of my friends is dead because of recurring seizures... If we would have known pot could help prevent it, or if health benefits were made more publicly aware, would that be so bad? No instead to keep it illegal, everybody hides the facts and benefits in order to vilinize it to keep it illegal, so even using it as medical treatment is sparse unless you already know about the benefits...
And you sir just contradicted yourself with your own statement.

Also, your "medical" marijuana benefits are completely bogus claims and misinformation, and here's why:

1) Upon further research, although THC in marijuana does suppress the excess of serotonin in the brain, which is the cause of headache. However since serotonin itself acts as a mood regulator in the brain, and the brain produces excess amount of it in order to combat stress and tension, the real cure all solution is to avoid unnecessary stressful and tense situations. Not marijuana:

Serotonin and Other Neurotransmitter Levels. Neurotransmitters are chemical messengers in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter (chemical messenger in the brain) that is important for sleep, well-being, and other factors that affect quality of life. Abnormalities in serotonin levels have been observed in both tension-type and migraine headache sufferers. Altered levels of other neurotransmitters, importantly dopamine and stress hormones, also occur with migraine and tension-type headaches, and could trigger the events in the brain leading to migraine.(citation)

2) Although it's true that marijuana does slow down some forms of tumor growth, there are healthier alternatives that work even better.

3) The use of synthetic THC is in conjunction to treat cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy only, which the practice itself causes nausea.

4) Well the latest research isn't all that promising:

Marijuana does not appear to improve memory or reverse effects of Alzheimer's disease, according to results of a University of British Columbia study performed on mice bred to have genetic mutations for the disease.

"We are a little surprised, actually. Originally, we were hoping there would be a positive effect, based on previous research," said Dr. Weihong Song, the Canada Research Chair in Alzheimer's disease and a UBC psychiatry professor.

Song said in an interview that the experiments were meant to validate research going back about six years that showed that marijuana might protect brain cells from injurious inflammation and even promote regeneration of brain neurons. That got scientists excited about the possibility of a benefit, since the brains of Alzheimer's patients shrink as cells die off.

The six researchers, affiliated with the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, used a synthetic derivative of cannabis compounds called HU210 which is 100 to 800 times more potent than marijuana consumed by humans. In experiments in which mice were initially taught how to get to a desired location in a maze, the mice that received high dose HU210 did no better than control subject mice who were administered no drug or those given a low dose.

The study was performed on a total of nearly 100 mice — a third which received a high-dose drug injection, a third which received a lower dose and a control group which didn't get the drug but still had a sham injection to produce the same conditions. Placed in a circular pool divided in four sections, mice were initially conditioned or taught where a platform was situated to avoid swimming in the water.

Mice that received the drug were no better at remembering where to go. Indeed, all three groups performed about the same.

After the experiments, mice were killed and their brains were examined. Post mortems showed that those receiving the highest dose of the drug had fewer brain cells, pointing to a detrimental effect of marijuana. But even lower doses of the drug impaired learning and memory.

Song concedes it's too early to conclude that medicinal marijuana won't be useful in Alzheimer's disease, especially since the study, published in the journal Current Alzheimer Research, was conducted in mice and using high doses.

"But what we can say at this point, is that the previous research done in rats and mice on the (beneficial) effects of synthetic cannabinoids is not necessarily applicable to humans. We can't place too much hope on the benefits of marijuana in Alzheimer's disease at this point," he said, referring to earlier work that may not surprise marijuana users who have experienced the blunting effects of the drug on their short or long-term memories.(citation)

5) Once again, false advertisement:

The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on IOP in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours.

The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma, a chronic disease requiring proven and effective treatment.

Currently, marijuana is designated as a Schedule I drug (drugs which have a high potential for abuse and no medical application or proven therapeutic value).

The only marijuana currently approved at the Federal level for medical use is Marinol, a synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most active component of marijuana. It was developed as an antiemetic (an agent that reduces nausea used in chemotherapy treatments), which can be taken orally in capsule form. The effects of Marinol on glaucoma are not impressive.

To date, no studies have shown that marijuana— or any of its approximately 400 chemical components—can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market.(citation)

6) Still false advertisement:

Some people who can't tolerate the side-effects associated with standard medications to treat epilepsy -- from headaches and nausea to drowsiness and cognitive dysfunction -- turn to marijuana or synthetic forms of the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, THC, to reduce the severity of seizures.

While previous studies had identified no adverse effects, new research led by Dr. Michael Corcoran at the University of Saskatchewan unexpectedly found that the pot compound can actually cause seizures in laboratory rats.

"What we found was contrary to our expectation in that although after a single injection there could be a suppression of seizure, when we gave the drug more than once to the rats over a period of days, their seizures actually got worse," Corcoran, a professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology, said Tuesday from Saskatoon.

Researchers are able to simulate epilepsy in rats through a process called kindling, in which tiny bursts of low-voltage current are administered over time. With repetition, the electrical discharge spreads from brain cell to brain cell, eventually creating a kind of firestorm of neural activity that resembles what occurs in human epilepsy.

Corcoran's team found that kindling gets worse when rats are injected with high doses of the marijuana-like drug. The doses were high enough that the rats also ended up stoned: some were immobile, had changes in muscle tone and their ability to walk a beam -- a measure of intoxication -- was affected, he said.(citation)

7) Yet better treatment with EGG.

8) The actual result is doubtful.

9) Anecdotal? You're willing to trust pseudoscience regarding women's health issue, really? Really?

10) Since it's not even proven that marijuana can actually treat seizure nor MS with relative success, this one is a bust by default.


I don't understand how what was highlighted in red is a contradiction unless you can directly link the existence of potheads to medical marijuana as something other than an irrelevant relationship... The matter is that awareness is not promoted enough because of the negative stigma that laws have attached to being a stoner.


Also this at the very least is not a pseudoscience , this is a fact of life.
Then how about overgeneralizing to the point of oxymoron? As in you just admitted to yourself that advertisement won't stop potheads to become who they are.

Also, there's no point for your straw man logical fallacy, when you can't defeat my allegation with your entitlement claim. Just like you can't erase them when I've got them in my original statement, and I can post them again and again:

1) Upon further research, although THC in marijuana does suppress the excess of serotonin in the brain, which is the cause of headache. However since serotonin itself acts as a mood regulator in the brain, and the brain produces excess amount of it in order to combat stress and tension, the real cure all solution is to avoid unnecessary stressful and tense situations. Not marijuana:

Serotonin and Other Neurotransmitter Levels. Neurotransmitters are chemical messengers in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter (chemical messenger in the brain) that is important for sleep, well-being, and other factors that affect quality of life. Abnormalities in serotonin levels have been observed in both tension-type and migraine headache sufferers. Altered levels of other neurotransmitters, importantly dopamine and stress hormones, also occur with migraine and tension-type headaches, and could trigger the events in the brain leading to migraine.(citation)

2) Although it's true that marijuana does slow down some forms of tumor growth, there are healthier alternatives that work even better.

3) The use of synthetic THC is in conjunction to treat cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy only, which the practice itself causes nausea.

4) Well the latest research isn't all that promising:

Marijuana does not appear to improve memory or reverse effects of Alzheimer's disease, according to results of a University of British Columbia study performed on mice bred to have genetic mutations for the disease.

"We are a little surprised, actually. Originally, we were hoping there would be a positive effect, based on previous research," said Dr. Weihong Song, the Canada Research Chair in Alzheimer's disease and a UBC psychiatry professor.

Song said in an interview that the experiments were meant to validate research going back about six years that showed that marijuana might protect brain cells from injurious inflammation and even promote regeneration of brain neurons. That got scientists excited about the possibility of a benefit, since the brains of Alzheimer's patients shrink as cells die off.

The six researchers, affiliated with the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, used a synthetic derivative of cannabis compounds called HU210 which is 100 to 800 times more potent than marijuana consumed by humans. In experiments in which mice were initially taught how to get to a desired location in a maze, the mice that received high dose HU210 did no better than control subject mice who were administered no drug or those given a low dose.

The study was performed on a total of nearly 100 mice — a third which received a high-dose drug injection, a third which received a lower dose and a control group which didn't get the drug but still had a sham injection to produce the same conditions. Placed in a circular pool divided in four sections, mice were initially conditioned or taught where a platform was situated to avoid swimming in the water.

Mice that received the drug were no better at remembering where to go. Indeed, all three groups performed about the same.

After the experiments, mice were killed and their brains were examined. Post mortems showed that those receiving the highest dose of the drug had fewer brain cells, pointing to a detrimental effect of marijuana. But even lower doses of the drug impaired learning and memory.

Song concedes it's too early to conclude that medicinal marijuana won't be useful in Alzheimer's disease, especially since the study, published in the journal Current Alzheimer Research, was conducted in mice and using high doses.

"But what we can say at this point, is that the previous research done in rats and mice on the (beneficial) effects of synthetic cannabinoids is not necessarily applicable to humans. We can't place too much hope on the benefits of marijuana in Alzheimer's disease at this point," he said, referring to earlier work that may not surprise marijuana users who have experienced the blunting effects of the drug on their short or long-term memories.(citation)

5) Once again, false advertisement:

The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on IOP in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours.

The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma, a chronic disease requiring proven and effective treatment.

Currently, marijuana is designated as a Schedule I drug (drugs which have a high potential for abuse and no medical application or proven therapeutic value).

The only marijuana currently approved at the Federal level for medical use is Marinol, a synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most active component of marijuana. It was developed as an antiemetic (an agent that reduces nausea used in chemotherapy treatments), which can be taken orally in capsule form. The effects of Marinol on glaucoma are not impressive.

To date, no studies have shown that marijuana— or any of its approximately 400 chemical components—can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market.(citation)

6) Still false advertisement:

Some people who can't tolerate the side-effects associated with standard medications to treat epilepsy -- from headaches and nausea to drowsiness and cognitive dysfunction -- turn to marijuana or synthetic forms of the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, THC, to reduce the severity of seizures.

While previous studies had identified no adverse effects, new research led by Dr. Michael Corcoran at the University of Saskatchewan unexpectedly found that the pot compound can actually cause seizures in laboratory rats.

"What we found was contrary to our expectation in that although after a single injection there could be a suppression of seizure, when we gave the drug more than once to the rats over a period of days, their seizures actually got worse," Corcoran, a professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology, said Tuesday from Saskatoon.

Researchers are able to simulate epilepsy in rats through a process called kindling, in which tiny bursts of low-voltage current are administered over time. With repetition, the electrical discharge spreads from brain cell to brain cell, eventually creating a kind of firestorm of neural activity that resembles what occurs in human epilepsy.

Corcoran's team found that kindling gets worse when rats are injected with high doses of the marijuana-like drug. The doses were high enough that the rats also ended up stoned: some were immobile, had changes in muscle tone and their ability to walk a beam -- a measure of intoxication -- was affected, he said.(citation)

7) Yet better treatment with EGG.

8) The actual result is doubtful.

9) Anecdotal? You're willing to trust pseudoscience regarding women's health issue, really? Really?

10) Since it's not even proven that marijuana can actually treat seizure nor MS with relative success, this one is a bust by default.



varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:

Pot's not unhealthy, it actually has more medical and health benefits... People are going to abuse ANY substance... Yet pot is so much healthier than things like alcohol and cigarettes, they need to legalize it.

Just say get stoned responsibly in ads, like we do with alcohol.



Still think it's worth keeping it illegal at the cost of a giant sinkhole of debt? The pros outweigh the cons no matter what, all legalizing will do "Bad", is make people potheads, but you know what, illegal or legal, people will be potheads whether there's a law strapped to it or not. The law just incites wasted money, police work, trafficking violence, and hatred.

One of my friends is dead because of recurring seizures... If we would have known pot could help prevent it, or if health benefits were made more publicly aware, would that be so bad? No instead to keep it illegal, everybody hides the facts and benefits in order to vilinize it to keep it illegal, so even using it as medical treatment is sparse unless you already know about the benefits...
And you sir just contradicted yourself with your own statement.

Also, your "medical" marijuana benefits are completely bogus claims and misinformation, and here's why:


I don't understand how what was highlighted in red is a contradiction unless you can directly link the existence of potheads to medical marijuana as something other than an irrelevant relationship... The matter is that awareness is not promoted enough because of the negative stigma that laws have attached to being a stoner.



Also this at the very least is not a pseudoscience , this is a fact of life.

Also very good sources for citation, but upon reading the counter argument against pot helping seizures, the tests have been primarily with rodents, while tests indicating that it is actually beneficial is directly studied through human patients. http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/litigators/medical/conditions/epilepsy.cfm There are many people with epilepsy and seizures that would attest to the benefits of medical marijuana, but a rodent can't really tell you aside from chart facts being based off an entirely different species.

"But "what our work suggests is that seizures that originate in the forebrain, particularly in the temporal lobe, probably are not the best candidate type of epileptic seizures to be treating with marijuana-like drugs."

^ Leads me to think that certain cases will be beneficial, and some would not. Being that to safely treat it, the type of epilepsy/seizure you have would need to be studied to see whether marijuana is right for you. In the worst case scenario, this would only mean the 'some' people would not get benefits from smoking pot.

False advertisements? Or differing results through very different research studies?
Neither, just poor medical ethic on human testing, of a 9 years old research that's outdated when compared to the Nov. 4, 2010 research.
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10
Then how about overgeneralizing to the point of oxymoron? As in you just admitted to yourself that advertisement won't stop potheads to become who they are.

Also, there's no point for your straw man logical fallacy, when you can't defeat my allegation with your entitlement claim. Just like you can't erase them when I've got them in my original statement, and I can post them again and again:



That would be the case if we were debating the merits of being a pothead or not, but that is an entirely different subject. Actually, this seems to be becoming more of an association fallacy if anything else. I am explicitly speaking of legalization and medical benefits and the stigma that is tossed onto it through the vilainizing of potheads, not the argument about potheads itself. I can see how you would think this is straw man as I have two correlating subjects together, but I do not link the former subject to any weighted relevance of the latter argument besides a mere cause and effect..

Also, I don't think it's a allegation that can be beat one way or another by either position of the debate, as it is in the field of science, even the professionals still squabble about this subject today. I don't think a 'new' research study has very much weight on validity over previous ones until it is actually put into effect among living humans in which the intent of the proposed study is for.


47115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10
Personally, I dont bother looking at research from either side. Since either side can bring up research.

But how come they are conflicting researches? How come there is no definitive answer like cigarettes? Its because its illegal, so we cant get 1 definitive answer on this subject

Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

varnlestoff wrote:



That would be the case if we were debating the merits of being a pothead or not, but that is an entirely different subject. Actually, this seems to be becoming more of an association fallacy if anything else. I am explicitly speaking of legalization and medical benefits and the stigma that is tossed onto it through the vilainizing of potheads, not the argument about potheads itself. I can see how you would think this is straw man as I have two correlating subjects together, but I do not link the former subject to any weighted relevance of the latter argument besides a mere cause and effect..

Also, I don't think it's a allegation that can be beat one way or another by both sides, as it is in the field of science, even the professionals still squabble about this subject today. I don't think how 'new' a research is has very much weight on validity of it until it is actually put into effect among living humans in which the intent of the proposed study is for.
So why even bother calling them "medical benefits"? When in actuality you just admitted to yourself that science can't prove the beneficiary factors of marijuana. Are you so desperate that you're willing to believe in nothing? That kind of ambiguity can't even beat my own objective moral reasoning.


superluccix wrote:

Personally, I dont bother looking at research from either side. Since either side can bring up research.

But how come they are conflicting researches?
How come there is no definitive answer like cigarettes? Its because its illegal, so we cant get 1 definitive answer on this subject
You're willing to let your own ignorance speaks for yourself, so why should you even pretend to care?
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:



That would be the case if we were debating the merits of being a pothead or not, but that is an entirely different subject. Actually, this seems to be becoming more of an association fallacy if anything else. I am explicitly speaking of legalization and medical benefits and the stigma that is tossed onto it through the vilainizing of potheads, not the argument about potheads itself. I can see how you would think this is straw man as I have two correlating subjects together, but I do not link the former subject to any weighted relevance of the latter argument besides a mere cause and effect..

Also, I don't think it's a allegation that can be beat one way or another by both sides, as it is in the field of science, even the professionals still squabble about this subject today. I don't think how 'new' a research is has very much weight on validity of it until it is actually put into effect among living humans in which the intent of the proposed study is for.
So why even bother calling them "medical benefits"? When in actuality you just admitted to yourself that science can't prove the beneficiary factors of marijuana. Are you so desperate that you're willing to believe in nothing? That kind of ambiguity can't even beat my own objective moral reasoning.




superluccix wrote:

Personally, I dont bother looking at research from either side. Since either side can bring up research.

But how come they are conflicting researches?
How come there is no definitive answer like cigarettes? Its because its illegal, so we cant get 1 definitive answer on this subject
You're willing to let your own ignorance speaks for yourself, so why should you even pretend to care?


When did I say it can't prove the beneficiary factors? Those factors have been proven to the extent that human research has allowed thus far, and now you are showing new research putting cracks in the former, I never denied that, but it still doesn't completely invalidate previous research. To think I believe 'nothing' would only be true if I said that 'research' deals absolute truths and are not subject to advancement, change, and improvement... The science of marijuana is not written in stone as the practice of finding benefits, and negative effects are still in their infancy, as your recent developments would show? Or do we have to interpret science as an absolute truth with no room for discovery?

Now I know it's easy to think that I am confusing the legal issues over weed with recreational and clinical purposes, however, the legalization of marijuana for recreational uses would have an impact on the negative stigma that helps neuter the awareness about the medical backing.

Are you positive that your 'ideals' are not beginning to mold with the ability to form a pragmatic stance, because where you draw the line seems to be within the recreational area. Which is where I find myself to be more lenient, the largest separation of our view... The way I see it, If weed makes people slaves, then shouldn't we as individuals have the choice to put cuffs on ourselves, rather than having the man 'tell' us we are free because we do not have such a choice to begin with? With all the positives, all I can see is that it is illegal because it shares a similar resemblance to the much deadlier 'alternative' recreation drugs.

IMO Cigarettes and Alcohol should be illegal along with LSD, Amphetamines, Psilocybin, Cocaine, and the others.. They are doing much more damage. Although the primary reason they are still legal is because large corporations produce them which helps the economy, while weed is a substance that can be home grown. Legalizing it even with a heavy tax would not benefit the economy as much as the deadlier drugs like Tobacco and Alcohol. What doesn't kill ya makes you stronger eh? What a load of **** when the very things that kill us are best sellers.

In hindsight, to the government, this is more of a economic issue rather than the moral/rights issue it is with the people. Actually that's exactly why it will more than likely be legalized eventually.
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:



That would be the case if we were debating the merits of being a pothead or not, but that is an entirely different subject. Actually, this seems to be becoming more of an association fallacy if anything else. I am explicitly speaking of legalization and medical benefits and the stigma that is tossed onto it through the vilainizing of potheads, not the argument about potheads itself. I can see how you would think this is straw man as I have two correlating subjects together, but I do not link the former subject to any weighted relevance of the latter argument besides a mere cause and effect..

Also, I don't think it's a allegation that can be beat one way or another by both sides, as it is in the field of science, even the professionals still squabble about this subject today. I don't think how 'new' a research is has very much weight on validity of it until it is actually put into effect among living humans in which the intent of the proposed study is for.
So why even bother calling them "medical benefits"? When in actuality you just admitted to yourself that science can't prove the beneficiary factors of marijuana. Are you so desperate that you're willing to believe in nothing? That kind of ambiguity can't even beat my own objective moral reasoning.




superluccix wrote:

Personally, I dont bother looking at research from either side. Since either side can bring up research.

But how come they are conflicting researches?
How come there is no definitive answer like cigarettes? Its because its illegal, so we cant get 1 definitive answer on this subject
You're willing to let your own ignorance speaks for yourself, so why should you even pretend to care?


When did I say it can't prove the beneficiary factors? Those factors have been proven to the extent that human research has allowed thus far, and now you are showing new research putting cracks in the former, I never denied that, but it still doesn't completely invalidate previous research. To think I believe 'nothing' would only be true if I said that 'research' deals absolute truths and are not subject to advancement, change, and improvement... The science of marijuana is not written in stone as the practice of finding benefits, and negative effects are still in their infancy, as your recent developments would show? Or do we have to interpret science as an absolute truth with no room for discovery?

Now I know it's easy to think that I am confusing the legal issues over weed with recreational and clinical purposes, however, the legalization of marijuana for recreational uses would have an impact on the negative stigma that helps neuter the awareness about the medical backing.

Are you positive that your 'ideals' are not beginning to mold with the ability to form a pragmatic stance, because where you draw the line seems to be within the recreational area. Which is where I find myself to be more lenient, the largest separation of our view... The way I see it, If weed makes people slaves, then shouldn't we as individuals have the choice to put cuffs on ourselves, rather than having the man 'tell' us we are free because we do not have such a choice to begin with? With all the positives, all I can see is that it is illegal because it shares a similar resemblance to the much deadlier 'alternative' recreation drugs.

IMO Cigarettes and Alcohol should be illegal along with LSD, Amphetamines, Psilocybin, Cocaine, and the others.. They are doing much more damage. Although the primary reason they are still legal is because large corporations produce them which helps the economy, while weed is a substance that can be home grown. Legalizing it even with a heavy tax would not benefit the economy as much as the deadlier drugs like Tobacco and Alcohol. What doesn't kill ya makes you stronger eh? What a load of **** when the very things that kill us are best sellers.

In hindsight, to the government, this is more of a economic issue rather than the moral/rights issue it is with the people. Actually that's exactly why it will more than likely be legalized eventually.
According to the Aristotelian rule of non-contradiction, the science has changed. When old discovery just got disproved with new findings. And even without legalization, these information are made available for the public, so there's no stigma regarding medical marijuana usage. However, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy on multiple levels; the "is-to-ought" slide from medical benefits into recreational, and another one from voluntary slavery to freedom. With that kind of mindset, you might as well become an Islamic fundamentalist; it doesn't cost you a dime to start, while the results are instantaneous: you're voluntarily enslaved by the God of Islam.

Finally, when your only concern is the economics, that's still within the realm of utilitarianism morality.
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:



That would be the case if we were debating the merits of being a pothead or not, but that is an entirely different subject. Actually, this seems to be becoming more of an association fallacy if anything else. I am explicitly speaking of legalization and medical benefits and the stigma that is tossed onto it through the vilainizing of potheads, not the argument about potheads itself. I can see how you would think this is straw man as I have two correlating subjects together, but I do not link the former subject to any weighted relevance of the latter argument besides a mere cause and effect..

Also, I don't think it's a allegation that can be beat one way or another by both sides, as it is in the field of science, even the professionals still squabble about this subject today. I don't think how 'new' a research is has very much weight on validity of it until it is actually put into effect among living humans in which the intent of the proposed study is for.
So why even bother calling them "medical benefits"? When in actuality you just admitted to yourself that science can't prove the beneficiary factors of marijuana. Are you so desperate that you're willing to believe in nothing? That kind of ambiguity can't even beat my own objective moral reasoning.




superluccix wrote:

Personally, I dont bother looking at research from either side. Since either side can bring up research.

But how come they are conflicting researches?
How come there is no definitive answer like cigarettes? Its because its illegal, so we cant get 1 definitive answer on this subject
You're willing to let your own ignorance speaks for yourself, so why should you even pretend to care?


When did I say it can't prove the beneficiary factors? Those factors have been proven to the extent that human research has allowed thus far, and now you are showing new research putting cracks in the former, I never denied that, but it still doesn't completely invalidate previous research. To think I believe 'nothing' would only be true if I said that 'research' deals absolute truths and are not subject to advancement, change, and improvement... The science of marijuana is not written in stone as the practice of finding benefits, and negative effects are still in their infancy, as your recent developments would show? Or do we have to interpret science as an absolute truth with no room for discovery?

Now I know it's easy to think that I am confusing the legal issues over weed with recreational and clinical purposes, however, the legalization of marijuana for recreational uses would have an impact on the negative stigma that helps neuter the awareness about the medical backing.

Are you positive that your 'ideals' are not beginning to mold with the ability to form a pragmatic stance, because where you draw the line seems to be within the recreational area. Which is where I find myself to be more lenient, the largest separation of our view... The way I see it, If weed makes people slaves, then shouldn't we as individuals have the choice to put cuffs on ourselves, rather than having the man 'tell' us we are free because we do not have such a choice to begin with? With all the positives, all I can see is that it is illegal because it shares a similar resemblance to the much deadlier 'alternative' recreation drugs.

IMO Cigarettes and Alcohol should be illegal along with LSD, Amphetamines, Psilocybin, Cocaine, and the others.. They are doing much more damage. Although the primary reason they are still legal is because large corporations produce them which helps the economy, while weed is a substance that can be home grown. Legalizing it even with a heavy tax would not benefit the economy as much as the deadlier drugs like Tobacco and Alcohol. What doesn't kill ya makes you stronger eh? What a load of **** when the very things that kill us are best sellers.

In hindsight, to the government, this is more of a economic issue rather than the moral/rights issue it is with the people. Actually that's exactly why it will more than likely be legalized eventually.
According to the Aristotelian rule of non-contradiction, the science has changed. When old discovery just got disproved with new findings. And even without legalization, these information are made available for the public, so there's no stigma regarding medical marijuana usage. However, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy on multiple levels; the "is-to-ought" slide from medical benefits into recreational, and another one from voluntary slavery to freedom. With that kind of mindset, you might as well become an Islamic fundamentalist; it doesn't cost you a dime to start, while the results are instantaneous: you're voluntarily enslaved by the God of Islam.

Finally, when your only concern is the economics, that's still within the realm of utilitarianism morality.


Utilitarianism? Look at your government for that... I'm a Libertarian. I was not speaking about the economy of my behalf, but from the governments stand point...

Also about Islamic fundamentalists... Just because you think alike, doesn't mean you agree with everything... Also I am certain that Islamic fundamentalists were not the first to enjoy ideology of believing in 'individual freedom with personal liberty'

Also, the 'old science', was not disproved. It was modified to fit with the new research. Knowing that perhaps 25-50% of seizure patients would not see positive effects or see worsening effects due to their condition being from a different part of the brain does not completely rule out the possibility of a treatment. Especially when the study is with rats.
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 11/4/10
Well damn.
47115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10


My response, its big


10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10
Personally I'm glad its illegal, the last thing we need is potheads driving or working. We already have enough of that as is with people who drink
Posted 11/4/10

varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

According to the Aristotelian rule of non-contradiction, the science has changed. When old discovery just got disproved with new findings. And even without legalization, these information are made available for the public, so there's no stigma regarding medical marijuana usage. However, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy on multiple levels; the "is-to-ought" slide from medical benefits into recreational, and another one from voluntary slavery to freedom. With that kind of mindset, you might as well become an Islamic fundamentalist; it doesn't cost you a dime to start, while the results are instantaneous: you're voluntarily enslaved by the God of Islam.

Finally, when your only concern is the economics, that's still within the realm of utilitarianism morality.


Utilitarianism? Look at your government for that... I'm a Libertarian. I was not speaking about the economy of my behalf, but from the governments stand point...

Also about Islamic fundamentalists... Just because you think alike, doesn't mean you agree with everything... Also I am certain that Islamic fundamentalists were not the first to enjoy ideology of believing in 'individual freedom with personal liberty'

Also, the 'old science', was not disproved. It was modified to fit with the new research. Knowing that perhaps 25-50% of seizure patients would not see positive effects or see worsening effects due to their condition being from a different part of the brain does not completely rule out the possibility of a treatment. Especially when the study is with rats.
Enough with your red herrings logic fallacy and stay on topic, as in since you already denied my scientific proofs on the lack of medical marijuana benefits with insufficient justifications, nor had you came up with a strong argument against my criticism about how recreational marijuana usage is a poor objective moral choice. It's thereby futile of you to argue about my Canadian government's medical marijuana regulation program with clear and distinct guidelines, or the fact that you would had to be physically risking yourself being sick, in order for yourself to be qualified as a human lab-rat for medical testing.


superluccix wrote:



My response, its big

Overrated and dealt with. When sober beats being high.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.