kmcguffee 0 #151 March 10, 2003 Quotethis is the "slippery slope" fallacy as well btw. Yeah, I've heard of the "slippery slope". I went to college too. I don't see how you are applying it here though. Quoteplease show studies that back this assertion. Which assertion is that? The MJ assertion, the alcohol assertion, or that you must compare apples to apples? Do you need a study to prove all of your points or can you think for yourself. Since you are not a sheep or a "shepard" I wouldn't think you would need those studies. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #152 March 10, 2003 QuoteQuotePeople who have used MJ for a long period of time find it harder and harder to get high. They have to smoke more to get the same effect as when they started. Some of them eventually turn to harder drugs to try and achieve the high again. . this is the "slippery slope" the entire gateway argument is a fallacy this is also the assertion i wish you to back with objective scientific evidence. do a real search and look at the sources of the "research" available before you repeat the same goverment misinformation and ridiculous distortions of reality attributed to MJ in [scary music]"Reefer Madness"[/scary music]____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #153 March 10, 2003 Quotethis is the "slippery slope" the entire gateway argument is a fallacy this is also the assertion i wish you to back with objective scientific evidence. do a real search and look at the sources of the "research" available before you repeat the same goverment misinformation and ridiculous distortions of reality attributed to MJ in [scary music]"Reefer Madness"[/scary music] I wasn't presenting somebody elses argument. I was agreeing with Andyman that I had seen the same thing. This is not a "slippery slope" argument though. A "slippery slope" argument would be "if they smoke MJ then they will surely shoot heroin". That is not what I said. Read up on it here: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm Slippery slope arguments are invalid argument types. They get used a lot around here. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JDBoston 0 #154 March 10, 2003 Like Denis Leary says, pot doesn't lead to hard drugs... it leads to carpentry. "Look, man, I made a bong out of my head!" Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #155 March 10, 2003 and this is one, unless you have some actual evidence to support your position you are basing your assertion solely on anecdotal accounts "some one i saw” 2? 10? 300? out of total number of uses? and users? over how long? what other chemical dependence issues might your subjects have had? History of mental illness? as i said there has been no rigorous study of these effects. You are quoting the “gateway drug argument” which also a baseless assertion without evidence to back it. This has always been a "slippery slope" argument repeating it again does not make it more valid____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #156 March 10, 2003 Never done drugs in my life.. Nor will I ever.. So who cares if Narcs are at the Boogie!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites misskriss 0 #157 March 10, 2003 this one time at cheerleading camp...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #158 March 10, 2003 Please!! Please!!! Tell me!! PM me if you have to Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #159 March 10, 2003 Quoteas i said there has been no rigorous study of these effects. You are quoting the “gateway drug argument” which also a baseless assertion without evidence to back it. This has always been a "slippery slope" argument repeating it again does not make it more valid Yeah, OK. Whatever you say guy. I'm sure you have a lot more experience than the rest of us. Light up dude! Just don't do it around me. Since you keep bringing it up, here is what a quick Google search found: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/22/1042911436690.html "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CrazyThomas 0 #160 March 10, 2003 I think this subject got wrapped up on the legality of the drug, and the actions taken. Maybe we should all consider the "Jeff Dow" type of people out there waiting for info like this. The whuffos who want the DZ's shut down is who I am referring to. Rather than publicize our problems by getting law enforcement involved, wouldn't it have been better to have confronted this person and gave them the run down on the situation? And yes, we should be civilized enough not to "shit where we eat". I think the biggest blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the LOUD MOUTH who reports it to the police. Are we not civil enough to settle our disputes by ourselves on the DZ without getting police involved? I know, you'll say....but I didn't want to approach this person, or I didn't want it known that it was me. This anonymous tipping of the police is chicken shit to say the least. Maybe this person would regret their "anonymous tip" if the DZ got shut down. Not the "doper", because as we all learned in school, dopers have no common sense or logic. But the person who wanted police involvement might be real sad if their favorite DZ was shut down because they reported violations to the police, and not the DZO or S&TA. In my distorted "doper" mind, it is the same as falling through some industrial haze, and then calling the FAA to report it. Sure, you get a fine, but the pilot loses also. Maybe the FAA even gives you a break for being the person reporting it? Later, Thomas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #161 March 10, 2003 from your study Quote "A study of Australian twins has found teenage marijuana smoking may open doors to harder drug abuse because smokers expose themselves to a drug lifestyle" hmm remember about the illegal part of this? yes drug dealers are very interested in getting you hooked on something else so as to suck more of your money out..remember this isnt a moral or individual rights issue to them its all economics.. legalization would remove exactly this enviroment and move the control of its sale and distribution to only slightly less nefarious masters, our goverment however control and regulation methods such as those used with alcohol and tobacco are a far better answer than creating a criminal class for anyone who wishes to indulge themselves said study is also rather short on facts as well but some points you aparently didnt note in your hasty defence Quote "Denise Kandel of Columbia University's psychiatry department, wrote that the study did not explain "whether or not a true causal link exists" between marijuana and hard drugs." and Quote "A spokesman for National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Paul Dillon, said: "The problem with a piece of research like this is it can be hijacked by people who would say one puff of cannabis will lead you straight to other drugs." also as i said before, I'll gladly wager my total drug use (of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than your average citizen. I cant say i have more experience than “everyone else” :rollseyes: but i HAVE looked at the issues with a far more objective view than those who blithely quote ancient govt propaganda and you'd have to pick and individual to compare to anyway, sweeping statements such as "everyone else" are disingenuous and add nothing to the discussion side note: eating 12 eggs a day is proven to be very bad for your weight and cholesterol levels, its not difficult to imagine scenarios where a lack of fitness on your part creates a hazardous environment for others and yet eggs are a staple of the american diet and obesity is not a crime..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base698 19 #162 March 10, 2003 Quote They are finding more and more that a lot of accidents may have been caused by smoking and driving too. Unfortunatly these don't take into account most of people that were found to have marijuana in their system also were drinking Quote In my opinion, the advocates of legalization aren't so much concerned for the welfare of glaucoma or cancer patients or "Big Cotton", so much as they are simply in it for themselves. There is an interesting thing regarding medical usage that was brought up. There is a drug by a leading pharmaceutical company that was 100% pure THC (I think it is called Cannibol or something). The argument is then why not use that instead of toking a joint? Well I'll you why: why pay $300 a bottle for something when you can grow it for free in your home? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #163 March 10, 2003 Quote also as i said before, I'll gladly wager my total drug use (of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than your average citizen. I cant say i have more experience than “everyone else” I'm going to guess that your 'average citizen' doesn't smoke pot, if they did it would be legal by now. Your statement might be true if you said "I'll gladly wager my total drug use of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than that of your average drug user" Quote :rollseyes: but i HAVE looked at the issues with a far more objective view than those who blithely quote ancient govt propaganda Why is your view more objective? Why is it that by presenting a viewpoint different than your he is blithely quoting ancient govt. propaganda? There are arguments on both sides of the fence, what is it that makes yours right? BASE698: Just an FYI: It's Marinol, and you're right, it's absurd to pay $300.00 a bottle for something you can grow in your home, unfortunately the drug companies can't make money if you grow it in your home. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #164 March 10, 2003 QuoteLoo As for medical value, I'm just asking for real scientific-method proof, not opinions. A real scientist knows that without the double-blind random, his own bias will skew the results. I wasn't referring to any particular method of ingestion. . And you won't get any because government DOCTRINE says there is no value, so double blind tests are not allowed, and anyone conducting such a test is subject to prosecution. Much as I distrust anecdotal evidence, that is all you will ever get until the DEA changes its rules.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #165 March 10, 2003 Quote I think the biggest blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the LOUD MOUTH who reports it to the police....This anonymous tipping of the police is chicken shit to say the least Yeah right, and finds himself called a 'narc', finds himself ostracized, finds his tires slashed, his windows broken, maybe his rig stolen or sabotaged, all courtesy of the hardcore dopers who resent his intrusion. I say fight dirty with dirty. Call it in anonymously. I wish I had."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #166 March 10, 2003 Interesting discussion you guys are in.. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #167 March 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteLoo As for medical value, I'm just asking for real scientific-method proof, not opinions. A real scientist knows that without the double-blind random, his own bias will skew the results. I wasn't referring to any particular method of ingestion. . And you won't get any because government DOCTRINE says there is no value, so double blind tests are not allowed, and anyone conducting such a test is subject to prosecution. Much as I distrust anecdotal evidence, that is all you will ever get until the DEA changes its rules. Although it's on DEA Schedule II, heroin (and morphine) has legitimate, PROVEN medical value. Ditto for cocaine. I believe that if there was a legitimate medical use for cannibis, it would be on Schedule II, but it isn't, it's on Schedule I as a non-narcotic, meaning that it has no legitimate medical use (same category as LSD). All this crap about government or pharmaceutical control denying the medical viability of marijuana because they can't control it is hooey. You could easily grow your own poppies, extract the juice from the unripe bulbs and make it into brown horse if you wanted to. All you need is an arid or semi-arid climate. How about other countries that don't have our gov's hangups about MJ, like say, Holland, for instance? Surely legitimate medical research can go on there, because with pot bars in Amsterdam, etc., researchers can conduct double-blind lab experiments that prove or disprove the efficacy of cannibis, and present their findings to the scientific community at large...anybody?"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #168 March 10, 2003 Quotebecause with pot bars in Amsterdam, etc., researchers can conduct double-blind lab experiments that prove or disprove the efficacy of cannibis, and present their findings to the scientific community at large...anybody? How? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JayhawkJumper 0 #169 March 10, 2003 I have read a lot of posts here that say "why hassle this jumper who is not hurting anyone else" Well I'm guessing he was smoking pot, but it could be anything. Marijuana slows your reaction time just like alcohol, so would you want someone to take a few shots and jump on your freefly dive? There's a reason why people don't get drunk and jump... they could not only kill themselves they could kill someone else. This being said, I would have rather see a situation like this end in the jumper being grounded for a while instead of police action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #170 March 10, 2003 Quote Quotebecause with pot bars in Amsterdam, etc., researchers can conduct double-blind lab experiments that prove or disprove the efficacy of cannibis, and present their findings to the scientific community at large...anybody? How? - Jim Well, obviously, if the Dutch are that liberal, their medical researchers can experiment all they want without fear of their equivalent of the DEA kicking their lab doors down with jackbooted heels...right? The Dutch aren't afraid to conduct unusual or controversial research. A few years ago they enlisted volunteers for a reproductive study using downtime on a university CT scanner. They made some physiological findings that disproved some 30-year-old conclusions made by Masters & Johnson. Are they doing it? If not, why not? Surely, in such a liberal place (where pretty much everything is legal), there would be legitimate medical research into the efficacy of cannibis...right? RIGHT? "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #171 March 10, 2003 QuoteAre they doing it? If not, why not? Surely, in such a liberal place (where pretty much everything is legal), there would be legitimate medical research into the efficacy of cannibis...right? RIGHT? Mark, it's not about how liberal a country is or isn't. I was asking how one might go about performing a double-blind study with marijuana. Marijuana has a distinct smell, flavor, and almost instant effect on the body. Those who get the marijuana will know immediately and those who don't will know just as quickly that they're smoking parsley. Make sense? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #172 March 10, 2003 Quote QuoteAre they doing it? If not, why not? Surely, in such a liberal place (where pretty much everything is legal), there would be legitimate medical research into the efficacy of cannibis...right? RIGHT? Mark, it's not about how liberal a country is or isn't. I was asking how one might go about performing a double-blind study with marijuana. Marijuana has a distinct smell, flavor, and almost instant effect on the body. Those who get the marijuana will know immediately and those who don't will know just as quickly that they're smoking parsley. Make sense? - Jim As far as pot smokers go, yes, I concur. However, what about the 70-year-old with glaucoma who's never had a toke in his life? It shouldn't be impossible to screen people, especially if anonymity is guaranteed. How about synthesizing fake dope (a placebo)? Or better yet, treating the product to remove the THC from it, much like decaf? Surely there must be a way...guess not. It's just too simple to say it can't be done."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,006 #173 March 10, 2003 >I was asking how one might go about performing a double-blind >study with marijuana. Pill or IV administration of THC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #174 March 10, 2003 Quote QuoteI'm going to guess that your 'average citizen' doesn't smoke pot, if they did it would be legal by now. not so because your average citizen also doesnt think for themselves, they just accept what they are told. ie "its bad. why would i want to try it? or want it do be legal? damn dopers all need to die!!" (ok that last bit was a joke, but I have actually run into (here and else where) the attitude that anyone who disagrees with the govt position is a "doper" and therefore an evil second class citizen whos rights are unimportant... the point still is not about drugs at all. Its about self determination, and governmental control over YOUR body. Quote:rollseyes: but i HAVE looked at the issues with a far more objective view than those who blithely quote ancient govt propaganda Why is your view more objective? Why is it that by presenting a viewpoint different than your he is blithely quoting ancient govt. propaganda? There are arguments on both sides of the fence, what is it that makes yours right? because the majority of his argument is echoed in the lovely (and rather old) propaganda film "Reefer Madness" you should watch it sometime, its so far from reality as to be cartoonish. Mine is more objective because i have studied the subject with an intent to understand as opposed to an agenda to demonize. I did not have a conclusion when i began to ask question and look for answers. QuoteYour statement might be true if you said "I'll gladly wager my total drug use of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than that of your average drug user" no i stand by my original statement i KNOW what i eat, and ingest, and am FAR more picky about both than your average citizen. I read labels and pay attention. What many people fail to understand is nearly EVERYONE IS A DRUG USER. They just dont think about them in the same way as illegal drugs because the havent been exposed to years of propaganda telling them about how horrible an aspirin addict is..and so their daily drug use isnt thought of as bad because the government doesnt tell them it is.. ever see anyone drink 8 cups of espresso? Wanna jump with them? Anything can be misused and abused. you can die from to much water (it actually intoxicates you too, rendering you unable to function normally and yet looks a lot like the opposite, dehydration) should we regulate DHMO now? Its easy to write an argument expressing how “evil” it is too…been done many times…and many sheep screamed for its banning, all because they were to stupid to think beyond the rhetoric "of this I am certain, that in a democracy, the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. . . and that oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. In such a popular prosecution, individual sufferers are in a much more deplorable condition than in any other." Edmund Burke____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #175 March 10, 2003 QuoteAs far as pot smokers go, yes, I concur. However, what about the 70-year-old with glaucoma who's never had a toke in his life? You're thinking that the 70 year old with Glaucoma wouldn't notice the immediate onset of either (a) relief, or (b) the side effects of marijuana? QuoteHow about synthesizing fake dope (a placebo)? Now there's an idea with some potential. QuoteOr better yet, treating the product to remove the THC from it, much like decaf Well, marijuana without THC would be kind of noticable, don't you think? Quote It's just too simple to say it can't be done. Everything is simple on the surface Mark, it's only when we start to dig into the details that things become complicated. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 7 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kmcguffee 0 #153 March 10, 2003 Quotethis is the "slippery slope" the entire gateway argument is a fallacy this is also the assertion i wish you to back with objective scientific evidence. do a real search and look at the sources of the "research" available before you repeat the same goverment misinformation and ridiculous distortions of reality attributed to MJ in [scary music]"Reefer Madness"[/scary music] I wasn't presenting somebody elses argument. I was agreeing with Andyman that I had seen the same thing. This is not a "slippery slope" argument though. A "slippery slope" argument would be "if they smoke MJ then they will surely shoot heroin". That is not what I said. Read up on it here: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm Slippery slope arguments are invalid argument types. They get used a lot around here. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #154 March 10, 2003 Like Denis Leary says, pot doesn't lead to hard drugs... it leads to carpentry. "Look, man, I made a bong out of my head!" Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #155 March 10, 2003 and this is one, unless you have some actual evidence to support your position you are basing your assertion solely on anecdotal accounts "some one i saw” 2? 10? 300? out of total number of uses? and users? over how long? what other chemical dependence issues might your subjects have had? History of mental illness? as i said there has been no rigorous study of these effects. You are quoting the “gateway drug argument” which also a baseless assertion without evidence to back it. This has always been a "slippery slope" argument repeating it again does not make it more valid____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #156 March 10, 2003 Never done drugs in my life.. Nor will I ever.. So who cares if Narcs are at the Boogie!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misskriss 0 #157 March 10, 2003 this one time at cheerleading camp...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #158 March 10, 2003 Please!! Please!!! Tell me!! PM me if you have to Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #159 March 10, 2003 Quoteas i said there has been no rigorous study of these effects. You are quoting the “gateway drug argument” which also a baseless assertion without evidence to back it. This has always been a "slippery slope" argument repeating it again does not make it more valid Yeah, OK. Whatever you say guy. I'm sure you have a lot more experience than the rest of us. Light up dude! Just don't do it around me. Since you keep bringing it up, here is what a quick Google search found: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/22/1042911436690.html "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyThomas 0 #160 March 10, 2003 I think this subject got wrapped up on the legality of the drug, and the actions taken. Maybe we should all consider the "Jeff Dow" type of people out there waiting for info like this. The whuffos who want the DZ's shut down is who I am referring to. Rather than publicize our problems by getting law enforcement involved, wouldn't it have been better to have confronted this person and gave them the run down on the situation? And yes, we should be civilized enough not to "shit where we eat". I think the biggest blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the LOUD MOUTH who reports it to the police. Are we not civil enough to settle our disputes by ourselves on the DZ without getting police involved? I know, you'll say....but I didn't want to approach this person, or I didn't want it known that it was me. This anonymous tipping of the police is chicken shit to say the least. Maybe this person would regret their "anonymous tip" if the DZ got shut down. Not the "doper", because as we all learned in school, dopers have no common sense or logic. But the person who wanted police involvement might be real sad if their favorite DZ was shut down because they reported violations to the police, and not the DZO or S&TA. In my distorted "doper" mind, it is the same as falling through some industrial haze, and then calling the FAA to report it. Sure, you get a fine, but the pilot loses also. Maybe the FAA even gives you a break for being the person reporting it? Later, Thomas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #161 March 10, 2003 from your study Quote "A study of Australian twins has found teenage marijuana smoking may open doors to harder drug abuse because smokers expose themselves to a drug lifestyle" hmm remember about the illegal part of this? yes drug dealers are very interested in getting you hooked on something else so as to suck more of your money out..remember this isnt a moral or individual rights issue to them its all economics.. legalization would remove exactly this enviroment and move the control of its sale and distribution to only slightly less nefarious masters, our goverment however control and regulation methods such as those used with alcohol and tobacco are a far better answer than creating a criminal class for anyone who wishes to indulge themselves said study is also rather short on facts as well but some points you aparently didnt note in your hasty defence Quote "Denise Kandel of Columbia University's psychiatry department, wrote that the study did not explain "whether or not a true causal link exists" between marijuana and hard drugs." and Quote "A spokesman for National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Paul Dillon, said: "The problem with a piece of research like this is it can be hijacked by people who would say one puff of cannabis will lead you straight to other drugs." also as i said before, I'll gladly wager my total drug use (of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than your average citizen. I cant say i have more experience than “everyone else” :rollseyes: but i HAVE looked at the issues with a far more objective view than those who blithely quote ancient govt propaganda and you'd have to pick and individual to compare to anyway, sweeping statements such as "everyone else" are disingenuous and add nothing to the discussion side note: eating 12 eggs a day is proven to be very bad for your weight and cholesterol levels, its not difficult to imagine scenarios where a lack of fitness on your part creates a hazardous environment for others and yet eggs are a staple of the american diet and obesity is not a crime..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base698 19 #162 March 10, 2003 Quote They are finding more and more that a lot of accidents may have been caused by smoking and driving too. Unfortunatly these don't take into account most of people that were found to have marijuana in their system also were drinking Quote In my opinion, the advocates of legalization aren't so much concerned for the welfare of glaucoma or cancer patients or "Big Cotton", so much as they are simply in it for themselves. There is an interesting thing regarding medical usage that was brought up. There is a drug by a leading pharmaceutical company that was 100% pure THC (I think it is called Cannibol or something). The argument is then why not use that instead of toking a joint? Well I'll you why: why pay $300 a bottle for something when you can grow it for free in your home? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #163 March 10, 2003 Quote also as i said before, I'll gladly wager my total drug use (of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than your average citizen. I cant say i have more experience than “everyone else” I'm going to guess that your 'average citizen' doesn't smoke pot, if they did it would be legal by now. Your statement might be true if you said "I'll gladly wager my total drug use of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than that of your average drug user" Quote :rollseyes: but i HAVE looked at the issues with a far more objective view than those who blithely quote ancient govt propaganda Why is your view more objective? Why is it that by presenting a viewpoint different than your he is blithely quoting ancient govt. propaganda? There are arguments on both sides of the fence, what is it that makes yours right? BASE698: Just an FYI: It's Marinol, and you're right, it's absurd to pay $300.00 a bottle for something you can grow in your home, unfortunately the drug companies can't make money if you grow it in your home. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #164 March 10, 2003 QuoteLoo As for medical value, I'm just asking for real scientific-method proof, not opinions. A real scientist knows that without the double-blind random, his own bias will skew the results. I wasn't referring to any particular method of ingestion. . And you won't get any because government DOCTRINE says there is no value, so double blind tests are not allowed, and anyone conducting such a test is subject to prosecution. Much as I distrust anecdotal evidence, that is all you will ever get until the DEA changes its rules.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #165 March 10, 2003 Quote I think the biggest blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the LOUD MOUTH who reports it to the police....This anonymous tipping of the police is chicken shit to say the least Yeah right, and finds himself called a 'narc', finds himself ostracized, finds his tires slashed, his windows broken, maybe his rig stolen or sabotaged, all courtesy of the hardcore dopers who resent his intrusion. I say fight dirty with dirty. Call it in anonymously. I wish I had."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #166 March 10, 2003 Interesting discussion you guys are in.. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #167 March 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteLoo As for medical value, I'm just asking for real scientific-method proof, not opinions. A real scientist knows that without the double-blind random, his own bias will skew the results. I wasn't referring to any particular method of ingestion. . And you won't get any because government DOCTRINE says there is no value, so double blind tests are not allowed, and anyone conducting such a test is subject to prosecution. Much as I distrust anecdotal evidence, that is all you will ever get until the DEA changes its rules. Although it's on DEA Schedule II, heroin (and morphine) has legitimate, PROVEN medical value. Ditto for cocaine. I believe that if there was a legitimate medical use for cannibis, it would be on Schedule II, but it isn't, it's on Schedule I as a non-narcotic, meaning that it has no legitimate medical use (same category as LSD). All this crap about government or pharmaceutical control denying the medical viability of marijuana because they can't control it is hooey. You could easily grow your own poppies, extract the juice from the unripe bulbs and make it into brown horse if you wanted to. All you need is an arid or semi-arid climate. How about other countries that don't have our gov's hangups about MJ, like say, Holland, for instance? Surely legitimate medical research can go on there, because with pot bars in Amsterdam, etc., researchers can conduct double-blind lab experiments that prove or disprove the efficacy of cannibis, and present their findings to the scientific community at large...anybody?"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #168 March 10, 2003 Quotebecause with pot bars in Amsterdam, etc., researchers can conduct double-blind lab experiments that prove or disprove the efficacy of cannibis, and present their findings to the scientific community at large...anybody? How? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JayhawkJumper 0 #169 March 10, 2003 I have read a lot of posts here that say "why hassle this jumper who is not hurting anyone else" Well I'm guessing he was smoking pot, but it could be anything. Marijuana slows your reaction time just like alcohol, so would you want someone to take a few shots and jump on your freefly dive? There's a reason why people don't get drunk and jump... they could not only kill themselves they could kill someone else. This being said, I would have rather see a situation like this end in the jumper being grounded for a while instead of police action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #170 March 10, 2003 Quote Quotebecause with pot bars in Amsterdam, etc., researchers can conduct double-blind lab experiments that prove or disprove the efficacy of cannibis, and present their findings to the scientific community at large...anybody? How? - Jim Well, obviously, if the Dutch are that liberal, their medical researchers can experiment all they want without fear of their equivalent of the DEA kicking their lab doors down with jackbooted heels...right? The Dutch aren't afraid to conduct unusual or controversial research. A few years ago they enlisted volunteers for a reproductive study using downtime on a university CT scanner. They made some physiological findings that disproved some 30-year-old conclusions made by Masters & Johnson. Are they doing it? If not, why not? Surely, in such a liberal place (where pretty much everything is legal), there would be legitimate medical research into the efficacy of cannibis...right? RIGHT? "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #171 March 10, 2003 QuoteAre they doing it? If not, why not? Surely, in such a liberal place (where pretty much everything is legal), there would be legitimate medical research into the efficacy of cannibis...right? RIGHT? Mark, it's not about how liberal a country is or isn't. I was asking how one might go about performing a double-blind study with marijuana. Marijuana has a distinct smell, flavor, and almost instant effect on the body. Those who get the marijuana will know immediately and those who don't will know just as quickly that they're smoking parsley. Make sense? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #172 March 10, 2003 Quote QuoteAre they doing it? If not, why not? Surely, in such a liberal place (where pretty much everything is legal), there would be legitimate medical research into the efficacy of cannibis...right? RIGHT? Mark, it's not about how liberal a country is or isn't. I was asking how one might go about performing a double-blind study with marijuana. Marijuana has a distinct smell, flavor, and almost instant effect on the body. Those who get the marijuana will know immediately and those who don't will know just as quickly that they're smoking parsley. Make sense? - Jim As far as pot smokers go, yes, I concur. However, what about the 70-year-old with glaucoma who's never had a toke in his life? It shouldn't be impossible to screen people, especially if anonymity is guaranteed. How about synthesizing fake dope (a placebo)? Or better yet, treating the product to remove the THC from it, much like decaf? Surely there must be a way...guess not. It's just too simple to say it can't be done."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #173 March 10, 2003 >I was asking how one might go about performing a double-blind >study with marijuana. Pill or IV administration of THC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #174 March 10, 2003 Quote QuoteI'm going to guess that your 'average citizen' doesn't smoke pot, if they did it would be legal by now. not so because your average citizen also doesnt think for themselves, they just accept what they are told. ie "its bad. why would i want to try it? or want it do be legal? damn dopers all need to die!!" (ok that last bit was a joke, but I have actually run into (here and else where) the attitude that anyone who disagrees with the govt position is a "doper" and therefore an evil second class citizen whos rights are unimportant... the point still is not about drugs at all. Its about self determination, and governmental control over YOUR body. Quote:rollseyes: but i HAVE looked at the issues with a far more objective view than those who blithely quote ancient govt propaganda Why is your view more objective? Why is it that by presenting a viewpoint different than your he is blithely quoting ancient govt. propaganda? There are arguments on both sides of the fence, what is it that makes yours right? because the majority of his argument is echoed in the lovely (and rather old) propaganda film "Reefer Madness" you should watch it sometime, its so far from reality as to be cartoonish. Mine is more objective because i have studied the subject with an intent to understand as opposed to an agenda to demonize. I did not have a conclusion when i began to ask question and look for answers. QuoteYour statement might be true if you said "I'll gladly wager my total drug use of all types is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than that of your average drug user" no i stand by my original statement i KNOW what i eat, and ingest, and am FAR more picky about both than your average citizen. I read labels and pay attention. What many people fail to understand is nearly EVERYONE IS A DRUG USER. They just dont think about them in the same way as illegal drugs because the havent been exposed to years of propaganda telling them about how horrible an aspirin addict is..and so their daily drug use isnt thought of as bad because the government doesnt tell them it is.. ever see anyone drink 8 cups of espresso? Wanna jump with them? Anything can be misused and abused. you can die from to much water (it actually intoxicates you too, rendering you unable to function normally and yet looks a lot like the opposite, dehydration) should we regulate DHMO now? Its easy to write an argument expressing how “evil” it is too…been done many times…and many sheep screamed for its banning, all because they were to stupid to think beyond the rhetoric "of this I am certain, that in a democracy, the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. . . and that oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. In such a popular prosecution, individual sufferers are in a much more deplorable condition than in any other." Edmund Burke____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #175 March 10, 2003 QuoteAs far as pot smokers go, yes, I concur. However, what about the 70-year-old with glaucoma who's never had a toke in his life? You're thinking that the 70 year old with Glaucoma wouldn't notice the immediate onset of either (a) relief, or (b) the side effects of marijuana? QuoteHow about synthesizing fake dope (a placebo)? Now there's an idea with some potential. QuoteOr better yet, treating the product to remove the THC from it, much like decaf Well, marijuana without THC would be kind of noticable, don't you think? Quote It's just too simple to say it can't be done. Everything is simple on the surface Mark, it's only when we start to dig into the details that things become complicated. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
