Posted on 11/10/2017 6:36:48 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“We truly do enjoy your overbearing prideful statements Mom. Keep’em coming!”
I believe Garth Tater, you have accurately described this here situation.
One thing I’ve noticed about prohibitionists, they act like experts but when push comes to shove they resort to fallacies, extreme hyperbole (I’m being kind lol) and for some in these parts, insane rage.
Growers evading the excessive state tax will be subject to the same unconstitutional actions as before, but now from the states protecting their turf.
Yes, the price of cannabis did drop when a bunch of states legalized it.
The people who are growing in the non-legal states have to compete with the people who are growing “en masse” and shipping the overflow that is left after local demand is left at a lower rate.
The black market price has dropped from it’s heyday where an ounce would sell to an end user for about 300 an ounce to about 200 an ounce, or about 2500 a pound. The legal price of an ounce is around 300 (including the very high taxes) so the black market numbers in the areas where it is legal will be under that; in urban areas like NYC where it is illegal the prices can go as high as 400-500.
As the industry spreads, it will bring a bunch of new jobs and even careers with it. It is one of the fastest growing cottage industries in the US.
Then it's not relevant to your claims about permanent brain damage.
I can say that substances which cause short term effects on function (whether it's brain function or some other organ system) do cause permanent damage when those effects are prolonged.
Do let us know when that's been peer-reviewed and appears on Pubmed.
those who insist that marijuana use is harmless.
Has anyone here insisted that - or is this a straw man?
That has been the theme of NORML ever since I've heard of the organization
Still peddling this falsehood even after I showed you the truth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3597432/posts?page=73#73)? For shame.
That is also the most common rationalization for the legalization of marijuana that I have seen from legalization proponents here on FR. They keep claiming that it is safer than anything else someone could be using.
"Safer than anything else" does not mean "harmless", backpedaller.
Then brace yourself:
"There is conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective:
For the treatment of chronic pain in adults (cannabis) (4-1)
As antiemetics in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (oral cannabinoids) (4-3)
For improving patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms (oral cannabinoids) (4-7a)
"There is moderate evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
Improving short-term sleep outcomes in individuals with sleep disturbance associated with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis (cannabinoids, primarily nabiximols) (4-19)"
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.
https://www.nap.edu/read/24625/chapter/6#128
My current favorite is Obama Kush. Puts me in a really good spot.
Mom doesn’t respond to evidence of her misstatements, NobleFree. It’s just not her style. When you actually nail the evidence of one of her misstatements to the wall like you have done here she unfortunately tends to disappear for awhile. But who knows, maybe we’ll get lucky and she’ll pop back up. Her responses are always so much fun!
Then it's not relevant to your claims about permanent brain damage.
Um... I was basically selecting papers at random, not papers to support or refute any particular point. Thus, just because none of the papers I randomly selected do not support points I have previously made about specific deleterious effects of marijuana use, does not mean that *no* papers show those specific examples.
You actually have the skills now that enable you to search for those papers yourself. If you are genuinely curious about the effects of marijuana use, then why not search the literature for yourself?
can say that substances which cause short term effects on function (whether it's brain function or some other organ system) do cause permanent damage when those effects are prolonged.
Do let us know when that's been peer-reviewed and appears on Pubmed.
That is a principle of toxicology--meaning that it is formulated on the basis of knowledge gained through thousands of studies and is not the result of any specific study. We see that principle in action in many every day situations--for example, if you are exposed to a whiff of tobacco smoke, your liver enzymes will detoxify it almost immediately and there will be no effect on your health. On the other hand, if you keep chain smoking over the period of several years, the chance of permanently damaging various organs--lungs, heart, bladder, etc.--increases. And there reaches a point when the damage is irreversible. The same principle applies to a wide variety of substances.
That has been the theme of NORML ever since I've heard of the organization
Still peddling this falsehood even after I showed you the truth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3597432/posts?page=73#73)? For shame.
Nope, it is still the message pushed by NORML, even if marijuana proponents who keep pushing their agenda at FR try to deny it. I found this statement just minutes ago at the NORML website: "By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose."
Contrary to NORML's assertions, the evidence shows otherwise.
Garth, I’ve long since figured out that you are a troll who enjoys throwing out statements which you cannot support. I’ve corrected you on at least a couple of issues before.
As for “evidence” of my supposed “misstatements,” do you seriously think I’ve forgotten just how wrong you have been in the past and how much effort it has taken to refute every single one of your points? I seem to recall that in the distant past (i.e. a few weeks ago), I had explained in very scientific terms exactly how the global warming hypothesis is not firmly rooted in scientific fact, and you had argued about it, even going so far as to post a paper which actually confirmed several of the points that I had made in an attempt to prove me wrong. And you have tried to claim that, somehow, there is some reservoir of CO2 that has never cycled through the atmosphere. And so on.
What I get from these interactions is that you are scientifically illiterate, but try to pass yourself off as having some kind of expert knowledge. Sorry, dude, but I have to inform you: reading a few pseudoscience advocacy websites are no substitute for spending years in university actually studying science.
Do not assume that just because I got tired of playing whack-a-mole with you, that I am backing down. You are still a scientifically illiterate troll.
The problem with people who love pseudoscience is that it does not matter how many times you provide them with evidence that they are wrong, they’ll just pop up with another lie. Unfortunately, lies are infinite while the truth is limited.
And let’s have some context: there are still *no exceptions* to the fact that every carbon based biomolecule in your body and the body of every living thing was converted from atmospheric CO2.
Actually... not. At least for the first two items on the list (4-1 and 4-3), the evidence quoted did not support the strong conclusions.
For the chronic pain, for example, they based their conclusion on a meta-analysis of several studies which actually did not find any better pain relief than with opioids (which are not very effective; I know a physician who says that opioids do not work on chronic pain). And there were significant side-effects which would make their use problematic.
And again, the evidence for its use as an anti-emetic is also weak and problematic. The meta-analysis found that, at best, it is equivalent to anti-emetics that are already in use—but those don’t cause highs like marijuana does.
I suspect that the reports of efficacy of marijuana for so many conditions are not based on actual efficacy, but on the fact that people who are stoned probably aren’t paying much attention to their other problems.
Oh, and one effect of chronic marijuana use or a single high dose is to cause hyperemesis—not exactly a quality I’d look for in an anti-emetic.
When I am looking for evidence of efficacy or harm caused by a substance, I do not look at book reviews, especially those which base their conclusions on meta-analyses. Meta-analyses are extremely weak as evidence. The best evidence is collected through carefully controlled studies, and I look those up in PubMed.
And the fact that more studies (both short and long term) are needed refutes anything I've said, because.....? I'm a scientist; I have both seen that caveat and used it so many times that it is almost invisible to me. More studies are *always* needed. 1) No study ever reveals the entire story, and 2) how else do you think we scientists guarantee job security?
“You very cleverly put a stipulation that you would only believe research that is not done by professionals, so you have a built-in excuse not to believe any bona-fide research.”
Blatant falsehood. I’ve said clearly I support 3rd party research. Not prohibitionist supported research & not cannabis supported research. As I posted earlier, you are not credible or believable, exDemMom. Not at all.
Trying to discredit me by proving my point--was that your intent? Just who are these "3rd party researchers"? What are their scientific qualifications? Who, exactly, is paying for their research? I suspect your "3rd party researchers" are something like the stories about abundant "renewable fuels"... the hydrogen fuel cell... perpetual motion... in other words, they don't exist. So you set up an impossibility as the only proof that you will accept of the harms of marijuana use, while rejecting (not very skillfully) the conclusions of legitimate research.
Do you seriously think I've never run across aficionados of pseudoscience before? Do you really think you are any different, even as you prove my predictions about you based on my previous encounters with fans of pseudoscience?
“BTW, your many spelling and grammatical errors do not help to make your case that marijuana is essentially harmless, either.”
You end with another logical fallacy. How appropriate.
If you are trying to claim that marijuana has no effect on brain function, and then post a screed full of grammatical and spelling errors, you undermine your own argument. I did notice fewer mistakes in your post this time around, though.
“Trying to discredit me...”
You discredit yourself with every post you make. You’ve been successfully proven wrong by numerous others in this thread numerous times. Your errors in logic & fact have been proven repeatedly in this thread.
You’re nothing more than an arrogant fraud, exDemMom & I’ve enjoyed reading your fallacies & at times blatant dishonesty. You’d make a great fill in for Jake Tapper.
Weird. Why?
You actually have the skills now that enable you to search for those papers yourself. If you are genuinely curious about the effects of marijuana use, then why not search the literature for yourself?
I did, and found no support for your claim about permanent brain damage. Ball's in your court.
can say that substances which cause short term effects on function (whether it's brain function or some other organ system) do cause permanent damage when those effects are prolonged.
Do let us know when that's been peer-reviewed and appears on Pubmed.
That is a principle of toxicology
And I guess we're supposed to just take your word for this, because you'll provide as much evidence for this claim as you have for any other of your claims - that is, zip.
That has been the theme of NORML ever since I've heard of the organization
Still peddling this falsehood even after I showed you the truth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3597432/posts?page=73#73)? For shame.
Nope, it is still the message pushed by NORML, even if marijuana proponents who keep pushing their agenda at FR try to deny it. I found this statement just minutes ago at the NORML website: "By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose."
"Nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose" also does not mean "harmless", backpedaller.
Contrary to NORML's assertions, the evidence shows otherwise.
And I guess we're supposed to just take your word for this, because you'll provide as much evidence for this claim as you have for any other of your claims - that is, zip.
Move those goalposts; you said you hadn't seen "any medical documentation of beneficial effects of any cannabinoid". Now you're backpedalling to not-better-than-other-medicines - and apparently implying that this is true for EVERY patient (because if it's not true for every patient, then the no-better-on-average medicine should be available for the sake of those patients for whom it works better).
The meta-analysis found that, at best, it is equivalent to anti-emetics that are already in use—but those don’t cause highs like marijuana does.
See above on no-better-on-average medicine.
I suspect
Your evidence-free suspicions are worth every penny I paid for them.
Oh, and one effect of chronic marijuana use or a single high dose is to cause hyperemesis—not exactly a quality I’d look for in an anti-emetic.
Marijuana-induced vomiting is rare: "With the large prevalence of marijuana use in the world, why does it appear that so few patients develop CHS?" [emphasis added]
- Galli, J. A., Sawaya, R. A., & Friedenberg, F. K. “Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome.” Current drug abuse reviews 4.4 (2011): 241–249 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576702/)
When I am looking for evidence of efficacy or harm caused by a substance, I do not look at book reviews, especially those which base their conclusions on meta-analyses. Meta-analyses are extremely weak as evidence.
You're entitled to your opinion - but that's all it is, and evidently contrary to the opinions of the editors of the many journals in which meta-analyses are published.
That is not a backpedal at all. But I see that you do not consider all of the implications of that statement. It is a statement that the best that could be shown in one or two studies was that patients reported that they experienced pain relief equivalent to other drugs.
For FDA purposes, a drug is unlikely to be approved unless it can be shown to be an improvement over current drugs on the market.
In the case of marijuana, the pain relief *may* have been as good (again, the evidence is extremely poor), but not better, than other drugs on the market (than opioids, IIRC). We're not talking about greatly effective drugs, just drugs that happen to be approved for that purpose. On top of that, marijuana has some pretty strong side effects. Yes, I realize that the major appeal of marijuana by so-called "medical" users is the high. However, from the viewpoint of a medical professional, that is an extremely serious side effect. The goal of pain relievers is to enable people to function normally--not to debilitate them by keeping them on a permanent high.
The meta-analysis found that, at best, it is equivalent to anti-emetics that are already in use—but those don’t cause highs like marijuana does.
See above on no-better-on-average medicine.
Once again, if a drug is not better than drugs that are already on the market, it is unlikely to be approved. And given the severe side-effects of marijuana, there is no evidence-based reason the FDA would approve it when there are superior, non-high inducing anti-emetics on the market.
Once again, I am *completely* aware that the so-called "medical" marijuana users are after the high. But I am speaking from the point of view of a medical professional who is more interested in returning patients to normal function than in facilitating their desire to get high.
Marijuana-induced vomiting is rare: "With the large prevalence of marijuana use in the world, why does it appear that so few patients develop CHS?" [emphasis added] - Galli, J. A., Sawaya, R. A., & Friedenberg, F. K. “Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome.” Current drug abuse reviews 4.4 (2011): 241–249 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576702/)
This technique is called cherry-picking: taking a single statement out of context and presenting it as if it makes the pseudoscience aficionado's case. It does not. Let me put that statement into context (and add some emphasis):
There are several shortcomings in our understanding of CHS. There exists no epidemiological data regarding the incidence and prevalence of CHS among chronic marijuana users. The syndrome is likely underreported given its recent recognition [74,75]. With the large prevalence of marijuana use in the world, why does it appear that so few patients develop CHS? Certain individuals may have a genetic polymorphisms in the cytochrome P450 enzymes responsible for the metabolism of the cannabinoids [62,72]. This could result in excessive levels of pro-emetic cannabinoids or emetogenic metabolites. Such genetic variations have yet to be studied in patients diagnosed with CHS and represent an area for future research.
Translated into English, this means that the authors did NOT say it is rare. In fact, it indicates that the authors fully expect that the measured incidence of cannaboid hyperemesis syndrome will increase as more clinicians become familiar with the condition.
In this much more recent review, Cannabinoid hyperemesis and the cyclic vomiting syndrome in adults: recognition, diagnosis, acute and long-term treatment, it states that reliable prevalence data does not exist. The same article also states that it takes about ten years to make a definitive diagnosis. So, the number of marijuana users who have hyperemesis syndrome might be significant--we just don't know yet.
You're entitled to your opinion - but that's all it is, and evidently contrary to the opinions of the editors of the many journals in which meta-analyses are published.
Meta-analyses are one of the weakest forms of medical "research" in existence. I'm not going to go into all of the details, but I will say that one of my most frustrating experiences as a medical research professional has been working in a department that oversees clinical studies. Much of the "research" is pure crap, yet it does get published. That is why I stipulated that the most robust type of research is that which is carefully designed and includes strong, appropriate controls. That pretty much excludes meta-analyses.
where you said:
"Wonderful. Just keep reminding her that every bit of food on the table was atmospheric carbon dioxide just a few short months ago."
Hmm. Still as true now as it was when I originally typed it. So what if mushrooms or other fungi are in their meal? Fungi, just like everything else, incorporate biological molecules--containing carbon--into their bodies. And regardless of whether their carbon source is fermented animal dung--the usual substrate of commercial mushrooms--or decayed wood, it still originated as atmospheric carbon dioxide. As I said before, no exceptions.
"All biomass is converted CO2. No exceptions."
Why is this so difficult to understand? CO2 is the molecule that plants, some protists, and some bacteria extract from their environment (whether they are on land, in the sea, or in some other environment) and convert into lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates through photosynthesis. Other organisms then consume them and incorporate those biomolecules into their bodies. This is true of *all* organisms that do not photosynthesize (and some that do).
Do you remember where I gave you those two exceptions in post #31 of that thread, namely:
1.) Mushrooms in my back yard consuming a tree that has been dead for years, (so not atmospheric CO2 a few short months ago and clearly an exception.)
So, you know for a fact that the person I had addressed those comments to is planning to eat [potentially toxic] mushrooms picked from the tree in your back yard? Those mushrooms which you seem to believe [incorrectly] do not contain carbon that was originally atmospheric CO2?
and
2.) Oceanic CO2 coming from undersea volcanoes and being consumed by oceanic plants - CO2 that has never been in the atmosphere, (another exception.)
Maybe the carbon cycle chart I posted was not detailed enough? Some carbon dioxide that gets dissolved in the ocean converts to carbonates that sink to the bottom of the ocean. At the edge of the continental plates, that mass of carbonates is subducted under the opposing plate, where it is dissolved into the hot magma and released in volcanoes as CO2. All of the CO2 cycles through the air and water, although some of the cycles may take thousands or millions of years.
and then I asked you if you would like to discuss anaerobic life processes?
Again, no exception. Anaerobes use biomolecules to form their bodies, and, just as with aerobes, those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of photosynthesis. The fact that anaerobes do not use O2 as the final electron acceptor in the electron transport chain--which affects how they use energy--does not alter the fact that they are carbon based organisms.
No exceptions still means no exceptions.
Have you ever even taken a biology, chemistry, or physics class?
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.