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.
Not all stats presentations and studies have an agenda. There are some researchers that are just paid to do pure reearch, and if they find anything useful, the entity funding the research, such as a school or a large corporation (Think MIT, or Xerox 's Parc Center, or the US Military) they try to figure out ways to capitalize on the research.
Just because this study was done doesn't give it any merit, so no it might not be worth talking about except to verify that the money came from an anti-drug source and that there are significant flaws that incude SUGGESTING conclusions by using "may" when in reality, it's just speculation.
We actually know a lot about long term effects because cannabis has been used for a very long time. There was even a depiction of the plant in an Egyptian pictograph that is estimated to be at least 3,000 years old. Not only that, but there have been over 20,000 studies done on cannabis worldwide.
I'm not saying there should not be more study. There should be more, and if the DEA would reschedule cannabis from schedule one to something less, there would be more study.
You really don't know, from watching a few family members (who share some of the same genes), anything about cannabis use. You do know something about your relatives and how you might react if you copied their behavior. None of your casual observations of this limited and insular group would be accepted by anyone as valid research.
Unfortunately California, all by itself, has given the medical cannabis movement a black eye. However, much of the fault lies with government, especially the LA City government, which for years refused to make any attempt to regulate the industry in their city. Subsequent attempts to close the barn door after all the livestock have escaped have left LA with over 100 lawsuits they are fighting with local dispensories.
Many prohibitionists in other states now point to California (because they think LA is California) and say, we don't want a program like that, or we don't want to become "another California", even though the laws in those states are usually proposed in opposition to the "California" model or in consideration of the flaws of that model.
Personally I don't think that all the hysteria is justified in any way. We're talking about a substance that has been used for thousands of years, a substance that is non-toxic, a substance that has a weaker propensity toward addiction than caffeine, and potential health benefits that might include fighting some types of cancer. All this for literally pennies a day, if you were ALLOWED to grow your own and if adults could legally purchase it.
I believe that most responsible people would agree that minors should not have access to this, or to alcohol, or harder drugs, or, as my parents believed, even coffee and tobacco.
Cannabis is not worse than cocaine, or morphine, and should not be in a more restrictive schedule category than they are.
To be accurate, Dr's can not write a "perscription" for cannabis anywhere in the US. They can only recommend it. Dr's would have their ability to write perscriptions yanked by the DEA if they tried that.
Why do you care whether someone with a headache gets a recommendation for cannabis? It will cure their headache faster than asperin and without the side effects of Tylenol.
As you say, almost anyone in Califonia has been able to get a recommendation for cannabis since the late 1990's, so anything that could have happened is already happening, but without sound regulation. Even without regulation the World (Even in California) has not ended. The state legislature has done for more damage to California than cannabis has.
Wouldn't a tax and regulate program, like we have with alcohol, a far more dangerous and toxic substance, make more sense than the current free-for-all shoot em up Drug War that we are living in? What's the fear of a responsible comprehensive regulatory system that treats addiction as a health issue and doesn't treat all use as abuse?
I agree with you as far as studies go: In fact that has always been my argument about any study, survey, poll or whatever: who is leading it, can certainly effect the results and we never see the same results over and over it seems. I just have mixed feelings watching my brother and a few others, plus seeing what has happened in Ca. Of course we know Ca is only one state and most of us know it is anything but representative of how we think as a country...
I agree with you as far as studies go: In fact that has always been my argument about any study, survey, poll or whatever: who is leading it, can certainly effect the results and we never see the same results over and over it seems. I just have mixed feelings watching my brother and a few others, plus seeing what has happened in Ca. Of course we know Ca is only one state and most of us know it is anything but representative of how we think as a country...
Not only is California only one state (still, something like the 8th largest economy in the world all by itself) it also was the first, and being the first at anything isn't usually being the best.
The problem in California that the prohibitionists always point to is really just Los Angeles, sure that covers 450 square miles, but it was the failure of the local government there to deal with reality that has left it as the poster child for how to not do this.
If you looked at the Oakland model, where government has not been lax and yet has worked with the medical marijuana community, you'd get an entirely different impression.
There is nothing in marijuana that compels continued use, it's not like tobacco, you don't NEED it. It is not physically addictive more than coffee is.
I firmly believe, based on the evidence that your brother could have stopped using it if he wanted to. There was an underlying issue there. I also firmly believe that the marijuana use, and his decline was a symptom not the cause. However, I really can not comment on any one individuals journey through life more than that, because I don't know all his history. So you should take my comments on your family member as being based on what is known about marijuanna and not your brothers very individual experiance.
Not only is California only one state (still, something like the 8th largest economy in the world all by itself) it also was the first, and being the first at anything isn't usually being the best.
The problem in California that the prohibitionists always point to is really just Los Angeles, sure that covers 450 square miles, but it was the failure of the local government there to deal with reality that has left it as the poster child for how to not do this.
If you looked at the Oakland model, where government has not been lax and yet has worked with the medical marijuana community, you'd get an entirely different impression.
There is nothing in marijuana that compels continued use, it's not like tobacco, you don't NEED it. It is not physically addictive more than coffee is.
I firmly believe, based on the evidence that your brother could have stopped using it if he wanted to. There was an underlying issue there. I also firmly believe that the marijuana use, and his decline was a symptom not the cause. However, I really can not comment on any one individuals journey through life more than that, because I don't know all his history. So you should take my comments on your family member as being based on what is known about marijuanna and not your brothers very individual experiance.
May he be at peace.
You are bringout some good ponts, but I still have mixed feeling about pot. Not only my brother, but several of his old teen friends (yes, in Ca) are much like him: they smoke it constantly and many have had serious problems. That and my husband being part of the "Just say NO" program in DC in the 80s I just can not accept or feel there is no proof, used over a long period of time it doesn't do damage. I am not saying, anyone who used it could not give it iup. that isn't my point...
For the record, I smoked the crap quite heavily in my teens and it I can safely say I didn't experience any of these miracle health benefits back then. On the contrary, it made me paranoid, lethargic, antisocial and I experienced many other side effects we were warned about in high school. My life began to improve drastically the moment I gave it up. I find it amusing that stoners are now claiming it peforms miracles in a pathetic effort to try to get their particular vice legalized. Anyone who is familiar with the effects of pot know full well it is a load of B.S. It has merit in making cancer patients eat, and it gives most people the munchies when they smoke it. As for curing cancer, killing pain and making you walk on water... There is a reason we call them "stoners" after all.
For the record, I smoked the crap quite heavily in my teens and it I can safely say I didn't experience any of these miracle health benefits back then. On the contrary, it made me paranoid, lethargic, antisocial and I experienced many other side effects we were warned about in high school. My life began to improve drastically the moment I gave it up. I find it amusing that stoners are now claiming it peforms miracles in a pathetic effort to try to get their particular vice legalized. Anyone who is familiar with the effects of pot know full well it is a load of B.S. It has merit in making cancer patients eat, and it gives most people the munchies when they smoke it. As for curing cancer, killing pain and making you walk on water... There is a reason we call them "stoners" after all.
Bob Marley died of malignant melanoma that began in his toe. He refused to have it amputated due to his religious beliefs and it spread. A Bible verse that Rastafarians hold as very important is Leviticus 21:5 - "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in the flesh." The first part of this verse is the foundation of the belief in the wearing of dreadlocks, and the last part is the basis for a belief that amputation (as well as other types of body modification) is sinful. Other verses, including those which refer to the body as a holy temple, may also influence this belief.
There is evidence that marijuana can stop or slow the growth of tumors in the lung. There is no evidence pointing to it eradicating all cancer from your body as in a cure.
As someone who uses medical marijuana for the relief of cancer and the side effects of medication, I can tell you it does help. In fact, it greatly helps.
Anyone who uses medical marijuana and is familiar with how helpful the medication is, knows full well your comments are a load of BS.
Bob Marley died of malignant melanoma that began in his toe. He refused to have it amputated due to his religious beliefs and it spread. A Bible verse that Rastafarians hold as very important is Leviticus 21:5 - "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in the flesh." The first part of this verse is the foundation of the belief in the wearing of dreadlocks, and the last part is the basis for a belief that amputation (as well as other types of body modification) is sinful. Other verses, including those which refer to the body as a holy temple, may also influence this belief.
There is evidence that marijuana can stop or slow the growth of tumors in the lung. There is no evidence pointing to it eradicating all cancer from your body as in a cure.
As someone who uses medical marijuana for the relief of cancer and the side effects of medication, I can tell you it does help. In fact, it greatly helps.
Anyone who uses medical marijuana and is familiar with how helpful the medication is, knows full well your comments are a load of BS.
and I could say the same about yours: Sure, there are studies or evidence, as you like to call it, that pot can do this or that: and for everyone of those studies there are other studies that dispute those findings. For those who live where smoking it is legal for medial reasons and you have a medical reason, fine: for those of us who do not believe these studies, fine for us as well, but I don't think anyone should automatically call someone else's comment BS just because they disagree with you. The subject of pot and its good and bad points have been challenged for years and years....
Let's not let this thread disintegrate into a big fight and name-calling exchange. I was not sure who was being referred to when "your" comments were said to be BS, but let's be bigger persons and not take offense. I don't think anybody under the stress of dealing with cancer needs that.
Like so many other controversial issues, we're not going to accomplish anything by arguing about it. Some people experience it as positive; other people, it just doesn't suit them at all. I saw a documentary of an older man who tried pot for the first time, due to his medical condition. He did it once, alone, and didn't get any relief or pleasure from it. He should have tried it again under more pleasant conditions (a good pot of coffee, some chocolate cake, perhaps, listening to music he particulary liked, in the company of a loved pet or loved person).
Some people are more sensual than others; some people are uncomfortable with that. An aversion to pot is patently not BS; I don't share that perspective but I've learned (the hard way, let me assure you -- especially online) that if I get defensive and start typing things without thinking about how they will hurt or offend someone else, I get into trouble. Let's not do that.
The logical thing to assume is that it may very well, in same cases, affect a cure--simply by relieving the pain. I would add this: I read somewhere, many years ago, that the majority of heroin addicts had a lack of endorphins in their brains. Of course, heroin is a thousand times worse than what we're referring to. But just for a moment, suppose it's true: heroin addiction is occasioned by a lack of endorphins. Then in a compassionate world, people with this condition (anhedonia?) would be treated with some sort of compensatory medications.
The cold fact is, we don't live in a compassionate world. Most people still eat butchered animals, we're still warring with one another, and humans still have the emotional makeup of cave dwellers. Some even say that the prime reason governments don't really want pot to be available is that using it stands in the way of work, good citizenship, obeying propoganda-- that it's subversive, in other words. It probably is.
Anyone who uses medical marijuana and is familiar with how helpful the medication is, knows full well your comments are a load of BS.
Sure, Beth. It's funny how every "medical marijuana" user is nothing more than a legalized stoner and many have admitted as much. They shop around to find a doctor that will write them a script for legal weed and it's party time. It has nothing to do with treating illness and is the same irresponsible mentality within the medical community that has resulted in the oxycontin epidemic.
If medical marijuana users truly are legit, then why are they constantly getting jacked by the cops for running grow-ops to supply their entire neighbourhood with pot? It's about as believable as a guy hooked on oxy getting caught with a kilo of heroin.
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.
Exactly
