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.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
The link I provided returns info at a number of levels related to the topic at hand (empirical, anecdotal, human cost), complete with URLs to their publishing sites. The substance appears to cause a lot of undesired effects out there. (Forget memory. Lately they're finding it rots the corpus callosum.) The volume of concerned posts is not unlike what's revealed when doing research on statins.
Conveniently you can click on any number of those links via just that one Google page.
Who wants to be around that kind of secondhand smoke?
I'm not going to explain to you again why your google search results aren't a good argument. Bye.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
And all you have posted is YOUR opinions.. Which are unsubstantiated
Nope... read back again. Still looking for answers to several questions I've asked. Not a single intelligent answer thus far. Just "IM A DOCTOR AND YOURE NOT" or "WHAT ABOUT KIDS" and other unoriginal drivel like that. Try again.
No...most modern conservatives are of the Neo-con variety, even if they don't know it. .
Incorrect a conservative believes in less government. Anything else is tabloid garbage. One can call themselves anything they want, their actions define themselves.
Santorum said he was conservative and he was anything but,
Nope... read back again. Still looking for answers to several questions I've asked. Not a single intelligent answer thus far. Just "IM A DOCTOR AND YOURE NOT" or "WHAT ABOUT KIDS" and other unoriginal drivel like that. Try again.
Are you a child?
You asked for reasons as to why alcohol is not a schedule 1 drug. Perhaps you need to educate yourself, as apparently you are not familiar with the DEA scheduling system.
You are given reasons, but you choose to ignore them. Such behavior is typical of liberals. Let us review again the reasons. Keep in mind that I am no fan of alcohol use either, but here are the reasons as to why alcohol is not a schedule 1 drug.
1. The DEA does not list alcohol as a drug.
2. Alcohol has a medical use as a neurolytic agent in cancer pain management.
3. Alcohol, in consumptions less than 2gm qd, reduces the risk of CAD
4. Alcohol consumption, in moderation, has been associated with a lower risk of dementia.
5. Alcohol is used in the Catholic religious sacrement every mass.
6. LSD and pot have not been shown, in ANY randomized, double blinded, prospective study to have any medical benefit.
7. IV ethyl alcohol infusion is used in the treatment of methanol and ethylene glycol toxicity/ingestion.
Those are the reasons as to why LSD and pot are schedule 1 and alcohol is not. You simply refuse to acknowledge facts (like most liberals) and are therefore incapable of education.
See "Dunning-Kruger Effect".
And yes, I am a physician and you are not. Being a CRNA does not make you a doctor- sorry- that is just the way that the state medical societies and the national board of medical examiners sees it, not me. If you want to be a physician, just take the MCATs and apply to medical school and complete a residency- it was not that hard.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Are you a child?
You asked for reasons as to why alcohol is not a schedule 1 drug. Perhaps you need to educate yourself, as apparently you are not familiar with the DEA scheduling system.
You are given reasons, but you choose to ignore them. Such behavior is typical of liberals. Let us review again the reasons. Keep in mind that I am no fan of alcohol use either, but here are the reasons as to why alcohol is not a schedule 1 drug.
1. The DEA does not list alcohol as a drug.
2. Alcohol has a medical use as a neurolytic agent in cancer pain management.
3. Alcohol, in consumptions less than 2gm qd, reduces the risk of CAD
4. Alcohol consumption, in moderation, has been associated with a lower risk of dementia.
5. Alcohol is used in the Catholic religious sacrement every mass.
6. LSD and pot have not been shown, in ANY randomized, double blinded, prospective study to have any medical benefit.
7. IV ethyl alcohol infusion is used in the treatment of methanol and ethylene glycol toxicity/ingestion.
Those are the reasons as to why LSD and pot are schedule 1 and alcohol is not. You simply refuse to acknowledge facts (like most liberals) and are therefore incapable of education.
See "Dunning-Kruger Effect".
And yes, I am a physician and you are not. Being a CRNA does not make you a doctor- sorry- that is just the way that the state medical societies and the national board of medical examiners sees it, not me.
You're hilarious that you keep presuming what my profession is. Attempting to use that for your argument proves how unsubstantiated it is.
Alcohol not a drug? HAHAHAHA. Things must only be "drugs" when they aren't sanctioned by the government.
Annnd, yet again...you keep ignoring the studies I posted that were meta-analyses of RCT's showing cannabis and it's use as a therapeutic agent. You also keep ignoring my questions asking you how many deaths you see per year related to alcohol vs cannabis. Must not fit your ridiculous outdated opinion.
YOU are the one playing ignorant, if you dismiss cannabis as having absolutely NO potential medical benefits. Even if cannabis DIDN'T have ANY medical benefits (which it absolutely potentially does according to several studies that you continue to ignore), how can you still justify it being schedule 1? It's impossible to overdose. It is safer than alcohol. It is safer than tobacco. You have NO answer for this.
The government tells you cocaine and many opiates are schedule 2...must be less addictive and safer than cannabis..Oh wait..
By the way..I don't think alcohol SHOULD be a level 1 substance
Here's the bottom line:
You are ignorant to research that exists regarding cannabis and it's potential medicinal value. You continue to choose to ignore it, and use that as your basis (presumably) for why it should remain a schedule 1 drug, despite the fact that it is vastly safer and less addictive than alcohol or tobacco. Hypothetically, even if this research didn't exist and it was proven that cannabis had NO medicinal value whatsoever (which is hard to do, because it is difficult to study schedule 1 drugs in depth), you would still think it appropriate to keep it a level 1 substance, while recreational consumption of alcohol legal, again despite the much more harmful and addictive nature of alcohol. This would keep thousands and thousands of people imprisoned each and every year for minor drug offenses because they chose to partake in something LESS harmful than a drug that is sanctioned by the government, which ruins lives and burdens society monetarily through prison overpopulation. If this is your argument, you can have it, but it isn't the least bit compelling or thoughtful, and frankly on the wrong side of history.
All the while, according to many of your other posts, you continue to rant about "librulz" and the fact that they yearn for government interference into our lives, while here you are, yearning for just that. Time to retire, "Doc".
Last edited by ForYourLungsOnly; 01-31-2016 at 03:02 PM..
Ahh....so far all I've gotten was "I don't want no GREASY SPOTS leechin off me with bad body odor" or "that one guy 7 years ago jumped off a balcony"..."LOSERS smoke this dangerous drug and are unproductive"
As predicted. The typical, uneducated and really baseless arguments.
So then nobody trying to argue can give me even ONE actual scientific reason to the original question asked, let alone 5? Not surprised.
Lot less than 7 years ago.
Quote:
Dangers of Psilocybin
Toxicity is a potential danger when magic mushrooms are consumed. While the lethal dose is relatively high, about 1.5 times higher than that of caffeine, psilocybin can be deadly if enough mushrooms containing the drug are consumed. It would take a very, very large dose of mushrooms to cause a lethal outcome, approximately 37 pounds or more for a 160 pound person. While the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances does assign a high therapeutic index number of 641 to psilocybin which denotes a relatively safe profile for the drug, this does not mean that magic mushrooms are safe; it simply means that taking a lethal dose is difficult to do.
Hospital admission has occurred when users take mushrooms with other drugs or when they suffer from adverse reactions to the drug. Most of the time, hospitalization resulting from magic mushroom use is the result of a user having a “bad trip” or major panic attack while under the influence of the drug. Such an occurrence can lead to self-injury, suicide or other cases of acute psychosis which result in behavioral episodes that pose serious risk to the user or to others.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Lot less than 7 years ago.
Dope slowly erodes the mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
We have seen evidence of that in this thread..
Did you miss the part where it says THIRTY SEVEN POUNDS of mushrooms for a 160 lb person? I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Guess what it takes for me to OD on alcohol? A trip to CVS, 20 bucks and the ability to drink 750cc of liquid.
And where did I say there is no such thing as a psilocybin overdose? I said it is nearly impossible to OD on cannabis.
In a place where I and pretty much everyone I knew smoked weed when we were in high school. A few years later most of us had given it up. So you know that many middle-aged people who smoke marijuana regularly? Really? Where's this going on?
Seattle. Plenty of middle aged stoners in the Seattle area, especially since the state legalized it.
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.
