Posted on 10/29/2014 6:43:13 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
A medication can't be effective if it has no dangers.
(Side-Effects Management is at the heart of Pharmacology.)
It's magical thinking to promote Weed as a cure-all with no dangers.
Read post 18 again and pay attention.
I know it’s hard for you.
Hello
“I see no claim made that they [Jefferson, Washington] used it”.
Have you been able to read 18 yet?
I know it may take you a bit of time, but do keep trying.
PS, I like how you use the bleeding heart liberal tactic of drawing at the heartstrings.
It’s for the children (weep); it’s for the cancer patients (double weep).
I mean that just closes down any and all rational thought or argument, doesn’t it. You’ve just grabbed the moral high ground and anyone else is just expressing cancer-free privilege.
I like how you use the bleeding heart liberal tactic of drawing at the heartstrings.
It’s for the children (weep); it’s for the cancer patients (double weep).
I mean that just closes down any and all rational thought or argument, doesn’t it. You’ve just grabbed the moral high ground and anyone else is just expressing cancer-free privilege.
I'm sorry for muir_redwoods that he had to read your mockery of his wife's fatal illness - but I'm glad you exposed the depths to which anti-pot zealots are willing to sink.
There is NO proof of ANY damage or ANY permanent changes caused by raw cannabis or ANY compounds found in cannabis. Even when using nonstop maximized doses that only exist in a laboratory (thousands of times higher than any “high potency pot”). The ONLY proven side-effects are temporary impairment and lung damage (which can be easily avoided with a vaporizer).
EVERY single study hinting at brain changes clearly says “MAY” and merely illustrates a casual statistical correlation. NOT a direct cause.
To prove a direct cause of brain damage, you would have to perform a twin study on animals or humans (the standard for every other drug). Yet, after nearly 80 years of prohibition and over $1 Trillion spent, not a SINGLE set of twin animals/humans has shown ANY permanent difference from ANY dose of cannabis. If it truly was that damaging/altering, prohibitionists would have NO PROBLEM showing a reproducible experiment of twin animals showing ANY difference at all.
Here are some other examples of casual statistical correlation that prove NO direct causation:
Schizophrenics are statistically 2-3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes. This does NOT mean cigarettes cause it.
http://news.sciencemag.org/2008/10/why-schizophrenics-smoke
Men who have had sex with 21 or more women statistically have lower risk of prostate cancer. It does NOT mean having sex with 21 women directly reduces cancer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11192385/Sex-with-21-women-lowers-risk-of-prostate-cancer-academics-find.html
Thank you for interpreting my first hand experience as a cry for sympathy. I know actual experience in these matters is unimportant to bone-headed ideologues like you and it’s very difficult to see plainly when your head is up your ass but by now you must be used to living like that.
There are many things I would love to have that I know will never be mine. Among those things is five minutes with you in person.
But it can't hurt to try. ;-D
There is nothing in the quoted words of Jefferson or Washington suggesting that they used hemp personally. Read it carefully asswipe. Or have a grownup read to to you.
I’m well aware of all that. I recently had an exchange with someone on one of these threads on it, and I think it may have been you.
I brought up this passage from Washington’s Diary and a responder provided more info, essentially exactly what you just wrote.
The preponderance of such old claims is actually my entire point and this Washington smoked dope claim is another of the old 60’s counter culture claims.
All this stuff from the 60’s hippies keeps getting recycled ad nauseum.
Another one is how Hearst made dope illegal because of his paper patents.
That one hasn’t shown up in this thread yet, I don’t think.
There was a book/pamphlet called The Emperors’s New Clothes and much of this stuff came out of that.
High Times pushed a lot of it as well.
Robert Wilson and Tim Leary were big popularizers of these ideas as were more overtly New Left types such as William Ayers and the like.
One instance does not make a preponderance.
Another one is how Hearst made dope illegal because of his paper patents.
What's the evidence against that? Business using government to protect itself from competition is a phenomenon of long standing - perhaps as old as government itself.
I would gladly hold your coat while you tuned this asshat!
DuPont was the one who held the paper making patents not Hearst.
You only read the articles that agree with your conclusion.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/marijuana-use-causes-brain-damage-confirmed-241869
Scientists from MCRI, Melbourne University and Wollongong University compared MRI scans of the brain for 59 people who had been using marijuana for an average of 15 years to 33 healthy people who had never used the drug.
After measuring changes to the volume, strength and integrity of white matter in the brains of all participants, researchers found that long-term heavy cannabis users had disruptions in their white matter fibers.
By the way, did you know that the age when you start smoking cigarettes is more significant than when you stop? People who started smoking in their early teens were more likely to get lung cancer than those who started later in life. My mother-in-law was a great example of this, she started at 12 and stopped at 50, but died of lung cancer at 89.
Marijuana should be governed by the same statutes that regulate thistles, dandelions and such.
Noxious Weed Acts generally force the owners of properties overgrown with the weed in question to eradicate it or be made to pay for its removal.
IMHO, it is beneath the dignity of the State to obsess over the consumption or other use of plants in general.
It’s just weird, really. Removed from special status, marijuana would be a minor crop, even if cultivated semi-ubiquitously.
Do you have a link showing methodology of this study? For some reason I can’t find it anywhere.
IF it’s yet another snapshot MRI study of different people with different brain structures, that doesn’t actually prove direct CHANGE in even one individual.
Even if they used a huge random sample (instead of the small easily cherry-picked sample sizes they normally use), it would only prove people with certain brain structures are statistically more likely to prefer cannabis. I’m sure you can find statistical correlations in brain differences in people who prefer alcohol or sobriety, or junk food or shopping, or adrenaline, etc. You might even be able to predict what is most addictive to a person based on brain structure. That does NOT prove damage or change over time.
No study I have seen has actually shown any change with multiple long-term MRI testing over many years. There has also never been a single study of twins showing long term differences. These studies would be easy to do and actually show a direct link but for some reason they are never published...
It was a long term study that studied many different impacts of marijuana use, including physical changes in the brain. over a period of time. (15 years, I think)
"can produce hundreds or thousands of byproducts—many of which are thought to be carcinogens. Research suggests"Alrighty then.
can produce hundreds OR thousands, so which is it?
many of which, how many?
are thought to be carcinogens, only thought to be?
Research suggests, only suggests?
That's your justification for behaving like a NAZI, against US Citizens for instinctively seeking relief from pain and disease?
Hyperbole and speculation, from a never tell a lie govt research reports?
I think you just like murdering your brother! You'll use anything as justification!
The fact that they don't publicly issue their methodology is even more suspicious.
Probably more bunk funded by prohibition's money makers- big pharma, big booze and law enforcement.
http://m.vice.com/read/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies
Alcohol makers finance anti-pot campaigns (proven by public finance documents):
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.