Posted on 07/07/2006 8:13:38 PM PDT by neverdem
Please elaborate. Did you read the whole thread?
I read every comment.
Not much to elaborate on, unless you are looking for me to expand on the delivery method of the heroin I feel the need to use after reading this garbage article.
I was thinking of fly paper, but dammit...they're so cute. I'm just going to have to grab them by the tails and move them under a bush. They are starting to trust me...
Move to Amsterdam
You move to anti-drug Sweden and enjoy the big government you crave ... I'll stick with the Land of the Free.
But according to your posts shouldn't I assume that the Land of the Free is also anti-drug? You remember the Drug War don't you?
Currently the Drug War stains this land's principles of liberty and limited government ... which is why I'm going to stay here and work to remove that stain.
Please see post #47
If an herb can be banned for being a gateway drug then porn
should be banned for causing rape because all rapists started
their deviation from the norm with it.
If you don't like Amsterdam try Vancouver. I've heard it's beautiful. I've also heard that the area where people have the liberty to do drugs isn't so nice.
There is no such thing as unlimited liberty as it is always
limited by the natural rights of others.
Copy and paste marijuana and hepatic fibrosis into the query box at PubMed. Maybe that first link was the study that you saw, but check the others.
They also used Sativex in the study and it wasn't as effective and the discussion I read centered on the ethanol content. I don't care if a beer has 50 time more ethanol, by your reported study, any ethanol/alcohol content for a cirrhotic liver isn't therapeutic.
Here's the statement from the first link in comment# 37:
"SATIVEX®contains approximately 50% v/v of ethanol. Each dose contains up to 0.04 g of ethanol. The median daily dose of 5 sprays would be up to 0.2 g ethanol."
It is an excerpt from Sativex's PRODUCT MONOGRAPH for Canada. That was from the cached HTML version of the original Sativex portable data file(pdf) document. It appears to be the equivalent of the product information insert provided with prescription medicines in their original packaging in the USA.
I found it and the amount of ethanol in a standard drink because I thought that the relative and absolute amount of ethanol was relevant.
As an aside, it's my experience that excerpting the relevant statements from either original pdf or cached HTML articles is a reliable pain in the butt.
Why the hell did GW Pharmaceuticals insert the ethanol into Sativex in the first place?
Governments usually won't approve anybody smoking anything, and ethanol is a great organic solvent.
Full disclosure: I'm a physician. My undergraduate major was chemistry. I'm limited in doing literature searches and using the internet as I have had no formal training in either. I had an informal introduction to the internet at a local library six years ago. I originally started searching Medline on CD-ROM over a decade ago. Now I go to PubMed to find citations in the medical literature all the time. Understanding how to use the Boolean operators, AND, OR, NOT greatly facilitates using PubMed. P.S. At PubMed, it's my experience that you don't have to capitalize and, or and not. If you use any other service/function of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, I would capitalize.
Here's another take on the same study.
"Rats that had been exposed to THC as "teens" took about 25% more heroin than did their just-say-no peers. Biochemical tests of the adult animals showed that THC-doused brains had the same number of receptors that responded to THC as unexposed rat brains, but more receptors for heroin and more of a compound associated with reward behavior in their neurons, the team reports online 5 July in Neuropsychopharmacology. Whether this indicates marijuana is a "gateway" drug depends on the definition of "gateway," says Hurd. She says both groups of animals took the same amount of time to start taking heroin, suggesting THC use doesn't start them on the path to hedonism, but the THC-primed rats got more into it, suggesting it paves the way for increased use."
"Give me cannabis or give me meth!"
That's because there is nowhere to move.
No, that's because no other country was founded on the principle of liberty.
No functioning society has had unlimited liberty.
Who wants "unlimited" liberty? Each adult's liberty should be limited by the rights of others ... and by nothing else.
If you don't like Amsterdam try Vancouver.
No, as I said, you go try anti-drug Sweden.
I've heard it's beautiful. I've also heard that the area where people have the liberty to do drugs isn't so nice.
Of course not ... the liberty to do drugs only in a limited area and in the absence of the liberty to sell them is a bad idea.
Our country was founded on the principle of self rule. The Constitution was initiated to establish the federal government. The Bill of Rights was implemented to balance the rights of the government with the rights of individuals.
Of course not ... the liberty to do drugs only in a limited area and in the absence of the liberty to sell them is a bad idea.
The liberty to do drugs and sell drugs in an unlimited area is a worse idea.
Our country is still a fairly nice and prosperous place. We don't want Anarchists, Libertarians, Liberals, drug users, and criminals to make it any worse than they already have. That's why the Libertarian Party can't even crack a half percent in a national election these days.
Our country was founded on the principle of self rule.
The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not familiar to you?
The Constitution was initiated to establish the federal government. The Bill of Rights was implemented to balance the rights of the government with the rights of individuals.
No, the body of the Constitution grants the federal government the only powers (not "rights") it has, with the rest being retained by the states and the people ... which is why some Founding Fathers opposed the Bill of Rights on grounds of redundancy.
Of course not ... the liberty to do drugs only in a limited area and in the absence of the liberty to sell them is a bad idea.
The liberty to do drugs and sell drugs in an unlimited area is a worse idea.
Nonsense ... the liberty to do and sell the deadly addictive violence-inducing drug alcohol has proved to be a better idea than trying to ban it. Eventually we'll grasp that the same is true of other drugs, particularly marijuana.
Yes, it is in the Declaration of Independence, and it was a great rallying cry, but when it came to founding our country by codifying the laws it is not to be found. According to Wiki the phrase was only used once in a Supreme Court case.
No, the body of the Constitution grants the federal government the only powers (not "rights") it has, with the rest being retained by the states and the people ...
Call it what you want, but the Supreme Court still decides where the "powers" of the government end, and the rights of the people begin. Your redefinition is meaningless.
which is why some Founding Fathers opposed the Bill of Rights on grounds of redundancy.
Their argument was that specifying people's rights would actually limit them. But since it was Federalists like Hamilton who held that view I have to wonder what their true motivation was.
Nonsense ... the liberty to do and sell the deadly addictive violence-inducing drug alcohol has proved to be a better idea than trying to ban it.
Alcohol was never banned. During Prohibition possession was legal, doctors could prescibe it, low alcohol beer was legal that could be turned into high alcohol beer, and law enforcement was not allowed to enter businesses that were serving alcohol to investigate.
Eventually we'll grasp that the same is true of other drugs, particularly marijuana.
One of these days maybe you'll realize that people don't want to live in neighborhoods where drugs are sold and used freely, and that groups like the Libertarian Party that espouse such nonsense are losers.
Yes, it is in the Declaration of Independence, and it was a great rallying cry, but when it came to founding our country by codifying the laws it is not to be found.
Incorrect as usual; the U.S. Constitution, the "supreme law of the land, states as one of its purposes to "secure the Blessings of Liberty".
No, the body of the Constitution grants the federal government the only powers (not "rights") it has, with the rest being retained by the states and the people ...
Call it what you want, but the Supreme Court still decides where the "powers" of the government end, and the rights of the people begin.
So you think Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas were properly decided? Conservatives don't.
which is why some Founding Fathers opposed the Bill of Rights on grounds of redundancy.
Their argument was that specifying people's rights would actually limit them. But since it was Federalists like Hamilton who held that view I have to wonder what their true motivation was.
The views of Federalists are automatically suspect? How is that a conservative point of view?
Nonsense ... the liberty to do and sell the deadly addictive violence-inducing drug alcohol has proved to be a better idea than trying to ban it.
Alcohol was never banned. During Prohibition possession was legal,
A distinction without a difference, as manufacture, sale, or transportation was prohibited.
doctors could prescibe it, low alcohol beer was legal that could be turned into high alcohol beer, and law enforcement was not allowed to enter businesses that were serving alcohol to investigate.
Mighty thin reeds on which to hang your distinction. Cocaine is prescribable ... does that mean it's not banned?
Eventually we'll grasp that the same is true of other drugs, particularly marijuana.
One of these days maybe you'll realize that people don't want to live in neighborhoods where drugs are sold and used freely,
The sale and circumstances of use of the drug alcohol are regulated, and I would expect and support comparable laws regarding other drugs.
and that groups like the Libertarian Party that espouse such nonsense are losers.
Empty namecalling.
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.