Originally Posted By Mr X Funny that "unbiased report" (yeah, right) makes no mention of the medicine being eaten. Oh, by the way, that carries NO risk of cancer. And, though it wouldn't help in the extreme cases Jon is talking about, it sure could help many with low levels of nausea to feel better, eat more, and recover faster. Why doesn't your excellent report bring THAT up? I'll tell you why. Because it's a bunch of BS, that's exactly why. They want it criminalized and they'll say whatever they need to to justify it. Oh, and by the way, cigarettes cause cancer too. Why are THEY legal?
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "Whatever. It's obvious you know nothing ABOUT the drug, but you're simply dismissing it under the "drugs are bad" catagory." Are you kidding me? I've read articles from the American Cancer Society's website and cancer.org, but I'm the one that knows nothing? You can't even give one credible source to where you're getting your info. No, I'm not "simply dismissing it under the "drugs are bad" catagory" I'm reading the facts. "Besides, if you've already GOT cancer what the heck do you have to lose anyway?" You know, cancer is not a death sentence. People beat it every day.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "I'll tell you why. Because it's a bunch of BS, that's exactly why. They want it criminalized and they'll say whatever they need to to justify it." Oh yes, I'm sorry, how silly of me. You are the expert on cancer and the American Caner Society knows nothing. What was I thinking? If it were really as harmless as you claim, then why would any advocate for cancer patients want it criminalized? Maybe you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Originally Posted By jonvn "when little Johnny is going through withdrawls" You don't get withrdawals from marijuana.
Originally Posted By jonvn At this point, it's pretty irrational. It's very simple. It helps people, use it. It has little to no side effects, as opposed to what we currently use to treat the disease. There is no reason not to.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "It's very simple. It helps people, use it. It has little to no side effects, as opposed to what we currently use to treat the disease." I checked cancer.org and the American Cancer Society and they stated otherwhise. You are the ones being irrational. All you guys can do is tell me that it is "well documented" Prove it. Where is it well documented? I've shown you articles from experts that say that you are wrong so where is your evidence? Here is something on eating it since you think that is the cure all "Smoking or eating raw marijuana can cause a number of effects, including feelings of euphoria, short-term memory loss, difficulty in completing complex tasks, changes in the perception of time and space, sleepiness, anxiety, confusion, and inability to concentrate. In studies, cannabinoids have been linked with dizziness, depression, paranoia, and hallucinations. Other side effects include low blood pressure, tachycardia (fast heart beat), and heart palpitations, although instances of death are rare. A review of studies looked at cannabinoid use in chemotherapy patients and found that 1 in 11 would stop using it due to its side effects."-cancer.org "You don't get withrdawals from marijuana." Well these guys state otherwise "The symptoms of a marijuana overdose include nausea, vomiting, hacking cough, disturbances to heart rhythms, and numbness in the limbs. Chronic use can also lead to laryngitis, bronchitis, and general apathy. With chronic (long-term, frequent) use, the ability to learn and remember new information may become impaired. " cancer.org You think that I am such an idiot because I am not taking your word for it, well sorry but I've been reading articles from experts that just don't coincide with your opinion. I would love it if you were right and marijuana had no ill side-effects, if it was the miracle drug we've been looking for. So show me some concrete evidence, tell me where it has been "well documented", show me even one scholarly article proving your point.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'll do better than that. I've used it, as an anti-nauseant. It worked like a miracle. I experienced none of the ridiculous side-effects you are somehow dredging up from any corner of the net you can find. And I experienced no withdrawls when I discontinued the medication after an extended period of time. Obviously, you've never used it. You have no experience with it. You've never spoken to anyone who has used it. You have no clue. But that won't stop you from trying to deny EXTREMELY effective medicine from sick people.
Originally Posted By Mr X And before you jump on your high horse about the legalities (as I'm sure you'd love to), I was living in Vancouver, B.C. at the time. Maybe you should look up how THEY feel about the issue. God Bless America (said with rolled eyes for sure).
Originally Posted By barboy What's all this ignorant talk about withdrawals from weed? ncnike, your position is silly and unfounded. Pot is not a physiologically addictive drug. Some can have a psychological addiction or mental attachment but the human anatomy doesn't have an insatiable yearning for a pot "fix". If you take issue with marijuana, fine, but at least base it on legitimate drawbacks and not fantasy or negative propaganda.
Originally Posted By barboy "I was living in Vancouver, B.C. at the time." I can one up you on the legal side. I roasted in Amsterdam, Netherlands in a lawful establishment. It was fun to partake at a streetside "brown cafe" along the waterways and blow smoke right in front of police without criminal retribution or social hassles. As for Vancouver it is my understandng that pot is illegal but the city refuses to enforce the law becaus toking out is such a trivial offense and low on the gov't's priority list. Vancouver authorities just don't care(much). I guess we would call it "de facto legalization" in Vancouver and "de jure AND de facto legalization" in Amsterdam.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "ncnike, your position is silly and unfounded" "I experienced none of the ridiculous side-effects you are somehow dredging up from any corner of the net you can find." I would say that the American Cancer Society and cancer.org are both a little more reputable than either of you. And the fact that you have both smoked pot puts your irrational (and comical) logic into perspective.
Originally Posted By barboy You're right, us junkies don't know where we speak--- we have no standing and we are disqualified from commenting on the legalization/medical dispensing of weed.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Some can have a psychological addiction or mental attachment but the human anatomy doesn't have an insatiable yearning for a pot "fix".<< Exactly. It's like those who claim other things are addictive - like pornography or food. They aren't; they're only addictive to obsessive/compulsive personalities that can become "addicted" to anything. But I do think in an effort to counter false claims of marijuana's addictiveness, it's being portrayed as some kind of wonder drug or completely harmless thing. Of course, it's not. Like all things, there's a give and take. From what I've read, pot smoke can be harmful to one's lungs, though perhaps not as bad as cigarette smoke. I'm no expert (I doubt any of us posting really are...) so I can't vouch for the Wikipedia article's accuracy, but it does cite several peer-reviewed journals on the health benefits and potential problems of marijuana. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H ealth_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis</a>
Originally Posted By barboy I would never call weed a wonder drug nor would I ever recommend it to people(sick or healthy, older or younger). But if one is stricken with cancer or aids ---especially in advanced stages---then the one afflicted, not a medic nor the gov't, should have the final say.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I would say that the American Cancer Society and cancer.org are both a little more reputable than either of you.** Noone here has argued that smoking (anything, actually) is not bad for you, or that it doesn't cause cancer. Obviously the American Cancer Society would have nothing positive to say about smoking. You still haven't found a quote or even a shread of evidence to argue against consuming it as food, however, other than that "longterm withdrawl" nonsense that could be subsituted for the word "coffee" without changing a single one of the facts. Care to comment? **And the fact that you have both smoked pot puts your irrational (and comical) logic into perspective.** For people in need of medicine, it's hardly a "comical" issue. But if it is for you, fine. I hope you never need it.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "For people in need of medicine, it's hardly a "comical" issue." I said that your logic on the issue is comical, not sick people "needing" the drug. And it doesn't sound like barboy was too sick when he was smoking pot in Amsterdam. I'm all for relieving suffering, but not when it's going to cause them more harm down the road. Why not put efforts into researching a way to use the THC (I think that is the ingredient that provides the desirable effects) without all the bad side-effects? They shouldn't need to legalize marijuana to do that.
Originally Posted By Mr X They've tried. As you can plainly hear in the video this topic refers to, those synthetic variations do not always work as effectively. So anyway, you think it's bad. Fine. I'd prefer to make that determination MYSELF in consultation with a doctor, thanks very much.
Originally Posted By Mr X **And it doesn't sound like barboy was too sick when he was smoking pot in Amsterdam.** So what?
Originally Posted By Mr X If you're trying to make some sort of "high horse" judgement about Barboy doing something perfectly legal...I sure hope that you are not a hypocrite. Can we assume that you have never had a beer, a glass of wine, tobacco, a cup of coffee, or an unhealthy meal in your lifetime?
