Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a reason why there is a wide range of medications available. If pot was the miracle drug to cure all ills, and treat all pain, then we would not need anything else than a joint before hearth surgery, but that is simply not the reality.
It seems hypocritical of you to promote one drug and rave against others. Pot can help with seizures and few other conditions, and the components can be extracted and put into non-intoxicating form, and that it fine.
I am tired of your anger and accusations. If this is what pot made you, than I highly recommend you quit ASAP. Why would you want to marinate in such anger and bitterness?
Quote:
Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not. I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.
Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot."
Well, I am here to apologize.
I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.
Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse." They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. ----
In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.
Oral opioid medications are not provided before heart surgery. They are provided AFTER surgery and are extremely dangerous. I still take one--perhaps once a month when my lower back pain (3 surgeries) is more than I can bear, but pot is my medicine of choice for the reasons Dr. Gupta mentions. And I take it in small edible doses only and have been "high" only twice in 18 months before I discovered its benefits. I don't like being high---and although I have an occasional drink, I have never in my life been drunk.
Pharmageddon Jarber, will protect America, however!
By the way, Finn, even Jesus got angry with the Pharisees. I'm simply following in His footsteps.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-31-2017 at 11:22 PM..
I'm not the one who is having a hard time. What is so hard to understand that a person who wants or even needs relief from pain can only use prescription drugs which may have bad effects and can be dangerous? Why are you avoiding the idea that it is not only unconscionable to deny the possibility of relief from a drug that has no such consequences, but that it is hypocritical to deny it for purely religious reasons without evidence of any REAL harm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
More spin.... Let's repeat: So, the answer is no, since the question is based on false premise. Besides, I already mentioned there are non-intoxicating forms of cannabis which can be used to alleviate some issues like seizures etc.
And once again, contrary to your claims, pot is not harmless. Anyone who makes such claims are lying.
Ok, I'm not going to quit pressing for clarity just because I am weary of your obfuscation; Tell me just exactly WHAT question is based on WHAT false premise.
Review: for relief of distress from certain medical conditions only prescription medicines are legally available. At least some of those, particulrly the opioids present danger and unwanted side effects. Marijuana has been shown to relieve many of those symptoms and there is no verifiable evidence of that danger OR unwanted side effects in medical usage. It is just illegal in many jurisdictions. It is unreasonable to oppose making marijuana available for medical usage and it is hypocritical to oppose it for religious reasons that have no faith wide rationales or even reasonable rationales.
By the way, Finn, even Jesus got angry with the Pharisees. I'm simply following in His footsteps.
Of course you'll justify it. Jesus even resorted to violence, so I guess anger and violence is a proper way to deal with your frustrations since Jesus did it.
Of course the rest of us know better and read things in context.
Ok, I'm not going to quit pressing for clarity just because I am weary of your obfuscation; Tell me just exactly WHAT question is based on WHAT false premise.
Let's try for the 4th time: No one is requiring anyone to become dependent on anything so its a bit of a straw man argument, as is the claim that pot has no negative consequences.
1. No one is required to become dependent on anything is pot is illegal
2. Pot is not without negative consequences
This is my final answer to you since I am not interested in answering the same questions over and over knowing you'll just play dumb and pretend you don't get it.
Let's try for the 4th time: No one is requiring anyone to become dependent on anything so its a bit of a straw man argument, as is the claim that pot has no negative consequences.
1. No one is required to become dependent on anything is pot is illegal
2. Pot is not without negative consequences
This is my final answer to you since I am not interested in answering the same questions over and over knowing you'll just play dumb and pretend you don't get it.
Why do you insist on using that misleading claim when I clarified it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
I'm not the one who is having a hard time. What is so hard to understand that a person who wants or even needs relief from pain can only use prescription drugs which may have bad effects and can be dangerous? Why are you avoiding the idea that it is not only unconscionable to deny the possibility of relief from a drug that has no such consequences, but that it is hypocritical to deny it for purely religious reasons without evidence of any REAL harm?
NO one is talking about chemical dependency and you KNOW it. You seem to be hiding behind an obvious misrepresentation of my meaning to keep from answering the real question.
What proven negative consequences of medical use of marijuana are there and do they even approach the side effects and dangers of opioids?
Of course you are not interested in answeing the same questions over and over. All you seem to be interested in is avoiding answering the question over and over.
THIS is just part of the aforementioned hypocrisy.
Why do you insist on using that misleading claim when I clarified it:
NO one is talking about chemical dependency and you KNOW it. You seem to be hiding behind an obvious misrepresentation of my meaning to keep from answering the real question.
What proven negative consequences of medical use of marijuana are there and do they even approach the side effects and dangers of opioids?
Of course you are not interested in answeing the same questions over and over. All you seem to be interested in is avoiding answering the question over and over.
THIS is just part of the aforementioned hypocrisy.
I also clarified my view several times, but lets pretend I didn't, since that seems to keep you going.
Quote:
I already mentioned there are non-intoxicating forms of cannabis which can be used to alleviate some issues like seizures etc.
I also clarified my view several times, but lets pretend I didn't, since that seems to keep you going.
No, Finn, that's why I have to keep adjusting questions to eliminate the things you are using to hide from answering by misdirection. If you would just answer the question honestly, Finn, all this would be over.
I have to wonder how much you can REALLT believe in what you are saying when you have to resort to such tricks to..what? score debate points? People are on to you Finn, but you serve a purpose in displaying the intellectual bankruptcy and lack of candidness of the side you have chosen.
Of course you'll justify it. Jesus even resorted to violence, so I guess anger and violence is a proper way to deal with your frustrations since Jesus did it.
Of course the rest of us know better and read things in context.
Good luck with your views.
You've lost the argument because you are without facts--as are fundamentalists most of the time. There is no factual reason to prevent it---you just wish to do so because it bolsters your Pharasaical views to impose your will on others.
Of course there are some "negative" consequences in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. There is for eating too much red meat or consuming too much ice cream or sodas. But there are absolutely NO moral implications from allowing the public as a whole to use any of these.
Holding out cannabis as a moral issue when there are so many other things far worse---plenty that are killing dozens of people per day in the name of capitalism--is the position of a hypocrite. My choice is to let people make their own choice---yours is to impose your Sharia christianity on everyone. Quite selfish.
You've lost the argument because you are without facts--as are fundamentalists most of the time. There is no factual reason to prevent it---you just wish to do so because it bolsters your Pharasaical views to impose your will on others.
Of course there are some "negative" consequences in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. There is for eating too much red meat or consuming too much ice cream or sodas. But there are absolutely NO moral implications from allowing the public as a whole to use any of these.
Holding out cannabis as a moral issue when there are so many other things far worse---plenty that are killing dozens of people per day in the name of capitalism--is the position of a hypocrite. My choice is to let people make their own choice---yours is to impose your Sharia christianity on everyone. Quite selfish.
Let me just throw this in there for the 4th time, since you too like to pretend I said something else:
Quote:
I already mentioned there are non-intoxicating forms of cannabis which can be used to alleviate some issues like seizures etc.
I don't have a problem with that.
Now, go twist someone elses words.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 08-01-2017 at 08:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's repeat: So, the answer is no, since the question is based on false premise. Besides, I already mentioned there are non-intoxicating forms of cannabis which can be used to alleviate some issues like seizures etc. 
