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.
This study was obviously bought and paid for by Big Pharma. Of course it concluded there is no medical use for pot. It had to or the buyers would not have paid for it and the researchers would have been out of jobs forever.
Is the study trustworthy? NO
Is it accurate? NO
Were the results predetermined and published under coercion? DEFNITELY
Welcome to the Brave New World of Corporate Government.
This study was obviously bought and paid for by Big Pharma. Of course it concluded there is no medical use for pot. It had to or the buyers would not have paid for it and the researchers would have been out of jobs forever.
Is the study trustworthy? NO
Is it accurate? NO
Were the results predetermined and published under coercion? DEFNITELY
Welcome to the Brave New World of Corporate Government.
^^^EXACTLY!
We can't have people growing medicine in their own back yards for next to nothing instead of buying big Pharma's high priced drugs.
This is the difference between anecdotes and science. If stoners want to get stoned - let them. Just don't insult the intelligence of people actually familiar with what constitutes a legitimate study and call pot "medicine". Again, it is like Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies calling her moonshine "rheumatiz medicine".
What bulloney. Many peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals support the science of medicinal marijuana. The only reason more aren't available are the obstacles put in their way by the feds/pharma.
Even if science didn't support the positive impact of marijuana, I'd be satisfied with the massive 'anecdotal' evidence. Your view will eventually, sooner rather than later I hope, be as outdated as those who argued there wasn't enough science to prove asbestos and tobacco are harmful.
What bulloney. Many peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals support the science of medicinal marijuana. The only reason more aren't available are the obstacles put in their way by the feds/pharma.
Even if science didn't support the positive impact of marijuana, I'd be satisfied with the massive 'anecdotal' evidence. Your view will eventually, sooner rather than later I hope, be as outdated as those who argued there wasn't enough science to prove asbestos and tobacco are harmful.
And as we have seen science changes as time goes on. Even scientific facts change. And like someone else said I'd rather put my trust in a natural God given substance to reduce pain, reduce anxiety, and increase appetite, and as a sleeping aid, rather than the manufactured synthetic crap that is provided by big pharma!
What bulloney. Many peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals support the science of medicinal marijuana. The only reason more aren't available are the obstacles put in their way by the feds/pharma.
Even if science didn't support the positive impact of marijuana, I'd be satisfied with the massive 'anecdotal' evidence. Your view will eventually, sooner rather than later I hope, be as outdated as those who argued there wasn't enough science to prove asbestos and tobacco are harmful.
This is completely false. Certainly there are many articles in peer reviewed journals noting the "efficacy" of medical marijuana. What you fail to realize, as you are not in medicine and have never published in the literature, is what constitutes a valid study. That would be a randomized, blinded, controlled, prospective study evaluating the efficacy of pot in different "medical" conditions. That study DOES NOT EXIST. The bar of the insurers to approve any new medicine or technique is a randomized, blinded prospective, controlled study. Pot falls far short. This is why laymen should not delve into science, as they can be easily fooled by erroneous data.
So you are satisfied with the "massive anecdotal evidence", just like they were with leeches and frontal lobotomies? Do you realize that what you are saying is the antithesis of science? Your argument of tobacco and asbestos are 180 degrees out of phase with the pot argument. The burden of science is to dispel the null hypothesis- it is not to provide "evidence" that something does not exist. Here is an example- Elvis lives out his life happily on the moon. This is true, as no one has disproved it, therefore it must be so.
Actually "granny" is right. Reasonable amounts of moonshine alcohol do help with rheumatism. Apparently reasonable amounts of MJ help with a number of ailments. It, along with most of the rest of the currently illegal substances, should be legal to make, own, distribute, sell and use. Having some drugs like crack cocaine and PCP available will not do their users any good but that is their problem.
MY anecdotal evidence on the efficacy of pot is a good friend with MS says a joint a day keeps the pain away. I do not understand, aside from my cynical comments on corporate greed, why he should be considered a criminal.
MY anecdotal evidence on the efficacy of pot is a good friend with MS says a joint a day keeps the pain away. I do not understand, aside from my cynical comments on corporate greed, why he should be considered a criminal.
Nor in mine. Regretfully, we are not the law. Big Pharma and the Cotton industry are the Law.
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.
