Originally Posted By ncnike7 "I'm not sure what problems you mean here." Maybe the info I've been reading is a little one-sided, but the American Cancer Society and cancer.org had articles stating the adverse effects of marijuana. One even said that a group of oncologists studying the matter said that they would not recommend it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But why did this get its own special wing of diseases we have to fight. I'd like us take the fight to fight all types of cancer." Politics. Lung cancer kills far more women than breast cancer. And for all the awareness of it, treatment for it is little different now than it was 20 years ago. It's very hard to find a cure for cancer, because it's not just one disease. It's all kinds of things, and it is taking a long time to figure it out. Some have suggested that there just isn't going to be a cure, because it's just a natural outgrowth of being alive.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But why did this get its own special wing of diseases we have to fight. I'd like us take the fight to fight all types of cancer.<< Unfortunately, each of these forms of cancer reqquire research, and that costs money. By building a successful advocay around a specific form of cancer, money is raised to help fight that particular disease. And hopefully, a breakthrough in one area like breast cancer may lead to cures for other forms of cancer, too. Shameless plug, with that in mind: November is Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. www.pancan.org
Originally Posted By DAR There might be a slight bias when it comes to any type of smoking with them. Which is understandable.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There might be a slight bias when it comes to any type of smoking with them. Which is understandable.<< That's what I'm thinking, too.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 I think that Breast Cancer gets "it's own wing" because so many celebrities joined the fight. But I agree, let's find a cure for every cancer. I'm not prejudice, I hate all cancers equally.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Why does everyone assume I'm a guy?<< Because most of the posters around here are men. >>And do you have something against Mormons, Utah, me or all of the above Blue?<< Just telling it like it is...if you choose to take it as a slam, so be it...I can't change that. But yes, I have quite a bit against the Mormons, as evidenced by an earlier thread, and I won't apologize for it.
Originally Posted By Mr X **That is why I don't think giving it to them is a good idea. The chemo and radiation is toxic enough.** And that's your opinion as a layperson. Personally, I'd rather my doctor had the option to discuss the pros and cons with me or my family and let US make the call. It amazes me that THIS particular, rather benign drug, is the subject of such controversy. If the effects are as awful as ncnike7 says, not many doctors would be prescribing it anyway now would they? But they certainly have a free hand in prescribing far more potentially harmful and addictive drugs, and do so every day. Why is this particular one so different?
Originally Posted By Mr X **I would hope so to, but someone posted before that there is no way to give a dosage to anyone because each "batch" is different.** That would not be true if it were legal and regulated. As people have already said here. But you keep repeating the same arguments anyway.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Maybe the info I've been reading is a little one-sided, but the American Cancer Society and cancer.org had articles stating the adverse effects of marijuana. There might be a slight bias when it comes to any type of smoking with them. Which is understandable.** Yes, that's what I've been trying to say. Of COURSE the American Cancer Society is not going to come out with a pro-smoking bias, EVEN for medical purposes, lest their message get misconstrued. OBVIOUSLY smoking is bad for you. Again, noone has argued that point here. However, in some cases of illness it's a question of comfort or quality of life, and in other cases the ability to eat and rest (thus promoting recovery) more than outweighs the potential risks years down the road. That's certainly a subject for debate, but my view is that it should be a debate among DOCTORS and not politicians..and if my DOCTOR is opposed to it because the risk/reward is too great in his/her opinion than I sure won't be able to get a prescription now will I?
Originally Posted By Mr X **Maybe the info I've been reading is a little one-sided, but the American Cancer Society and cancer.org had articles stating the adverse effects of marijuana.** Okay, you have stated the long term risks of getting cancer from smoking it. As I said, understandable and OBVIOUSLY a big drawback. BUT, all drugs have their side-effects and drawbacks. That's why doctors have to make a call and decide if the risk is worth the benefit. That's true of ALL MEDICATIONS. Other than THAT, however, the only "adverse affects" you have managed to come up with are in the worst case scenario comparable to a regular coffee drinker who gives it up (as far as your "withdrawal" nonsense), or a moderately heavy drinker (long term effects on the brain). And in any case your arguments are at the extreme end of the scale, a problem only for heavy marijuana users over a long period of time.
Originally Posted By Mr X **If you want to fry your own brain, then go for it. Maybe you already have.** Once again your comments not only show what a high horse you really rode in on, but also your utter lack of understanding about what this substance actually does both positive and negative, medically or otherwise. **I was not passing any judgement (sic)** Yes, you were. And still are. **"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?" No, I have never had any of those.** You mean to claim that you have never, in your entire life, eaten an unhealthy meal? Never dined at a restaurant that served overly large portions which you finished? Never eaten a fast food item? Never had a meal which contained more than the recommended amounts of fat, salt, or sugar? Not once?
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "You mean to claim that you have never, in your entire life, eaten an unhealthy meal? Never dined at a restaurant that served overly large portions which you finished? Never eaten a fast food item? Never had a meal which contained more than the recommended amounts of fat, salt, or sugar? Not once?" Not since I was old enough understand what Mcdonald's fries could do to my heart. Call me paranoid or stupid (which I'm sure that you on YOUR "high horse" already have) but I try to avoid any food or substance that might give me cancer or make me fat. I haven't had a doughnut since I was in Jr. High. Oh and about that "high horse" that you accuse me of being on, I thought that this was a place where we could express our opinions. But I guess we can only express them if they coincide with you and your horse's.
Originally Posted By Mr X Wow. No, in this case then you are perfectly entitled to your high horse...at least you're not a hypocrite (as so many others are). I wouldn't wanna live such a spartan lifestyle, but hey more power to ya (I'm more of the "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die" crowd, myself).
Originally Posted By ncnike7 As long as I get my horse (and I'm not too fat to ride it) I'll be fine. But seriously, why does my opinion offend you so much? I'm not lobbying for anything. I don't call my senators demanding that they continue to support the criminalization of marijuana. I just like a good debate. Thank you Mr. X for giving me one, but why did you get so offended?
Originally Posted By Mr X Of course your opinion doesn't offend me (though I disagree, obviously). What I find offensive are the people who DO lobby and push the politicians on this issue under the heading of a "moral mandate" (and it's obviously a hot button issue for the religious right wing), simply because I DO find the drug to be effective and would like for it to be available, assuming my doctor recommended it, if and when me or my family might need it. Simple as that. And although you obviously have brought up some valid points (and some not so valid imo) regarding the longterm health risks (and like I said, I don't disagree about the longterm risk of cancer in this case), I get the impression that others pushing for continued criminalization do so not because they've done their homework on the drug and concluded that it isn't worth the risk..but rather because it falls under the heading of a "moral mandate" for them. That, I find offensive because it infringes on my personal freedom and possibly on my future quality of life should I have the misfortune to actually need it.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 Well I can't argue with that, very well put Mr X. I'm glad that here on Laughing Place we can all just agree to disagree!
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin As someone who has recently had chemo therapy (lost 100# last year) it would have come as a great relief to not have suffered with the nausea, vomiting and loss of appetite. I needed to lose the weight, but any reputable health professional would advise that this kind of loss is extreme and inadvisable in so short a time. So yeah...puff, puff, pass. Or a better option would be to leach the THC into cooking oil or butter (a little tricky because it burns so easily). And perhaps smoking the substance is carcinogenic...but so is big city air and what's in the water we drink? I'm all in favor of banning alcohol...families are destroyed by this evil...but, I've never known anyone to get high on marijuana and abuse members of their family...worst thing I've ever heard was they woke up the next morning and the fridge was empty...get a grip, find something really evil to rage against.
