storm1977 0 #76 June 7, 2005 Maybe not, but many other studies link smoking pot to (Of all things) Lung Cancer... One of the diseses smoking Pot is supposed to sooth the pain for (ironic) It is like treating cancer with radiation which causes cancer... Never really understood that one ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #77 June 7, 2005 Quotewhen the federal government WILL NOT ALLOW any independent organization to conduct a study, their bias is blatant and obvious..... they are already well aware that such research would contradict years of demonization and dogma on their part Got proof? Or is this just retoric?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 June 7, 2005 QuoteQuotehow many potheads get rehabbed? QuoteA March 2005 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing a rising trend in the number of people seeking treatment for marijuana addiction is not likely to benefit research advocates either. http://cannabisnews.com/news/20/thread20529.shtml Did you read the rest of the article? It pretty much substantiates every argument made against you, unless you cherry pick the quotations. To anyone without an agenda, it's clear the pot is less addictive than coke, tobacco, or alcohol, and with few negative effects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 June 7, 2005 QuoteYes, since the STATES do not have the right to allow something outlawed by the FEDERAL government. The States NEVER had the right to over rule the Federal Law. The Constitution spell out the barriers, which have been run over in the past few decades by Washington and the Supreme Court. Doesn't make it right, just makes it so. To say the States never had this right is ludicrous. The Feds never had the right to outlaw it in the first place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #80 June 7, 2005 QuoteKALLEND....RON....!!!! Just whip your dicks out and see who has the bigger one... Oh, that's a gimme. I was born BEFORE phthalates came into common use in consumer packaging...... 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
kelpdiver 2 #81 June 7, 2005 QuoteSo, if pot is (for arguments sake) as effective as let's say codine why not take codine??? Codine does not have the long term health risks associated with Pot. I will vomit the codeine. After taking demerol I lose the ability to focus my eyes. Might take away the pain, but so far I've found the pain preferable to either of these. I just end up taking advil. Ron's article points out that while Vioxx has killed a number of people, no one has ever OD'd on pot. All of the emerging drugs in the same family as Vioxx have these issues. If the question is what benefit does pot have, then I ask in return, what's the difference between it and nicotine, or alcohol. Until 1937, all were fine. Now one is evil. Yet of the 3, it has the least deaths, and most of those are related to the criminalization of the drug. Is it really better than someone drink half a bottle of vodka to numb the pain? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #82 June 7, 2005 QuoteMaybe not, but many other studies link smoking pot to (Of all things) Lung Cancer... One of the diseses smoking Pot is supposed to sooth the pain for (ironic) It is like treating cancer with radiation which causes cancer... Never really understood that one So cancer from (radiation/smoking pot) takes 30 years to develop, and may not develop at all, but you already have cancer and will die next year without treatment. Reserves sometimes malfunction. Is that a good reason to skydive without a reserve? Understand it now?... 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
Ron 10 #83 June 7, 2005 QuoteDid you read the rest of the article? It pretty much substantiates every argument made against you, unless you cherry pick the quotations. Well I used a PRO maijuana site to show my point. The whole artical is PRO pot...But I found the fact that it backed my point in those references to be really strong comming from a PRO pot site. QuoteTo anyone without an agenda, it's clear the pot is less addictive than coke, tobacco, or alcohol, and with few negative effects. Did I EVER say otherwise? Nope. All I did was support the SCOTUS doing its job and not letting a State rewrite Federal Law. I have said this before....I don't give a shit about POT or other parts... Two seperate issues.... 1. States rights vs Federal Law. 2. Pot.. Ignore #2 and look at #1. I don't care about #2. If it is such a great drug....Make it leagal the way you have to by LAW."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #84 June 7, 2005 QuoteThe Feds never had the right to outlaw it in the first place. Based on what?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallingchip 0 #85 June 7, 2005 You know I think I have read every post submitted on this topic with an open mind and tried to understand everybodies point of view or opinion on the matter, including my own. Most opinions I felt were intelligent, well thought out, and articulated. Some opinions opened my eyes to some issues that I never would have associated with logic until this opportunity arrived for me to have the privilege to be blessed by ALL of your enlightened intellect. I want to thank ALL of you and would like to share my conclusion of ALL of your whit on this controversial subject.... YOU ALL are full of shit (yep including me)...______________________________________________ "A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 June 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe Feds never had the right to outlaw it in the first place. Based on what? 10th Amemendment. This recent decision had arguments about interstate commerce in it to make it legitimate, but that isn't going on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 June 7, 2005 Quote10th Amemendment QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. There is nothing in there that says the Federal Government can't make Pot illegal. The Federal Goverment made it illegal. The States cannot over ride the Federal Law and make it legal."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #88 June 7, 2005 You know I think I have read every post submitted on this topic with an open mind and tried to understand everybodies point of view or opinion on the matter, including my own. Dude...you need a job...or a hobby....or SOMETHING! That's pathetic! Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallingchip 0 #89 June 7, 2005 Quote You know I think I have read every post submitted on this topic with an open mind and tried to understand everybodies point of view or opinion on the matter, including my own. Dude...you need a job...or a hobby....or SOMETHING! That's pathetic! Peace~ linz ....and yet again, another well thought out, intelligent, and articulated statement...______________________________________________ "A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #90 June 7, 2005 QuoteTwo seperate issues.... 1. States rights vs Federal Law. 2. Pot.. Ignore #2 and look at #1. You don't understand. Most people cannot handle breaking down an issue into digestable chunks. It's easier to get all emotional about it and cry and whine rather than constructively go out and work the real issue. 1 - that's why pro-pot legalization advocates won't progress (despite much validity to their position). They can't separate their 'feelings' from legitimate legal and practical thought. (This is symptomatic to the failure of many attempts to change law in the country - lack of rational thought in the base of both parties and in general) 2 - that's why so many people think it's GOOD for courts to legislate from the bench when the bench agrees with them. Emotional investment = ends justifying means 3 - that's why we waste so much time filibustering judge candidates on their personal positions rather than their ability to do their jobs despite those personal positions 4 - that's why we get high profile candidates who speak to emotion instead of facts - particularly at the federal levels ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 June 7, 2005 Ron, if you can't read X for what it says, then yeah, you're not going to see any problem here. But the next time a Democrat led DC abuses federal authority, I'll be sure to remind you that you are fine with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #92 June 7, 2005 QuoteRon, if you can't read X for what it says, then yeah, you're not going to see any problem here. But the next time a Democrat led DC abuses federal authority, I'll be sure to remind you that you are fine with it. Dude the SCOTUS was not "Republican". You smokers need to do it legally Really if Pot is all that great, it should be easy to make it legal for all the wonders it is."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 June 8, 2005 calling me a pothead is a personal attack, Ron. I don't smoke anything. I'm as clean as they come. I'm sorry you are missing the point here. Just because the SC supports the continued ignorance of the Xth doesn't make it right, and it will bother you more the next time power shifts back to the other party. Right now you don't care because it's actually convenient to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #94 June 8, 2005 Quotecalling me a pothead is a personal attack, Ron. I don't smoke anything. I'm as clean as they come. Sorry was not meant as a personal attack...Thats why I put the <> at the end of the sentance. It was meant as a joke. QuoteI'm sorry you are missing the point here. Just because the SC supports the continued ignorance of the Xth doesn't make it right, and it will bother you more the next time power shifts back to the other party See I see this as the State trying to over rule the Federal Government...And I don't think they have that right. I don't think my mind will change no matter who is in office. Its called a chain of command. Federal, then State, then Local, then your home. Just because you may want something to be legal in your home does not make it OK. Just becasue your local government wants something to be legal the State can still say no....ect. Pretty simple really. Quote Right now you don't care because it's actually convenient to you. How is it convenient to me?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #95 June 8, 2005 QuoteYou said there were NO clinical trials...Thats just Bull Shit. Because cannabisnews.com says so.....that is funny. How do you know the doctors performing the study are providing the substance? Or are they just doing research on people who have to get their own weed? You don't know.....but you talk loud and a lot , so I guess that makes up for it.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #96 June 8, 2005 QuoteBecause cannabisnews.com says so.....that is funny. How do you know the doctors performing the study are providing the substance? Or are they just doing research on people who have to get their own weed? Well, if you did ANY research before you opened your mouth you would know. I of course don't expect you do do that. Here is some more stuff for you: Quote— The United States government distributes marijuana to six people in the United States who are former patients of a now-defunct medical study from the 1970s. — All marijuana used for medical studies in the U.S. is grown at a government-backed farm at the University of Mississippi. Quotehttp://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/nacda/marijuanastatement.html Since its inception in 1974, NIDA has been the sole administrator of a contract to grow cannabis (marijuana) for research purposes and the only legal source for cannabis in the United States Under the current contract with the University of Mississippi for any given year NIDA has the option to grow either 1.5 or 6.5 acres of cannabis, or to not grow any at all, depending on research demand. Generally, 1.5 acres are grown in alternate years. NIDA's present policy is to provide cannabis for medical research purposes to either grantees or nongrantees whose research and protocols have scientific merit, providing the research is determined to be an appropriate use of NIDA resources and the principal investigator obtains the necessary licences I hope the NIDA is a good enough source for you. Gee try looking into stuff before you open your mouth next time. QuoteYou don't know.....but you talk loud and a lot , so I guess that makes up for it.... Well I do know, you didn't. But that didn't stop you from making another "Expert" response...Just like normal"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #97 June 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteMaybe not, but many other studies link smoking pot to (Of all things) Lung Cancer... One of the diseses smoking Pot is supposed to sooth the pain for (ironic) It is like treating cancer with radiation which causes cancer... Never really understood that one So cancer from (radiation/smoking pot) takes 30 years to develop, and may not develop at all, but you already have cancer and will die next year without treatment. Reserves sometimes malfunction. Is that a good reason to skydive without a reserve? Understand it now? what about chronic arthritis???? It starts with one thing and leads to others. Yet Chronic arthritis never killed anyone!!! BTW- your elitist attitude still sucks and needs to go. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #98 June 8, 2005 Like I said, that is a lot of loud talking.....still don't see any proof of your 13 clinical studies other than from the bastion of trustworthy information, cannabisnews.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #99 June 8, 2005 lol ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #100 June 8, 2005 Oh good God...You have nothing better to do? Quote http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/nacda/marijuanastatement.html In recent years, growing 1.5 acres every other year has been adequate to supply both the seven patients receiving cannabis under individual patient INDs and cannabis research grants. There are indications now, however, that the number of requests may increase, perhaps dramatically. The Division of Research Grants has already reported the submission of three grant applications that deal directly with studying the medical use of cannabis -- one on the short-term effects of cannabinoids in HIV patients, a second on ocular cannabinoid effects, and a third on cannabis in the treatment of acute migraine. In addition, the number of requests from non-NIH applicants also may increase substantially. For example, pursuant to a 1991 law that establishes a Therapeutic Research Program within the Massachusetts State Department of Health and Human Services and a 1996 law that makes it legal for patients in the program to have cannabis in their possession, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has sought assurances that NIDA will supply cannabis for clinical trials on the plant material as a therapeutic modality. NIDA also has received inquiries from the Executive Director of Special Research Programs at the University of California concerning the provision of cannabis for research purposes. This request is associated with a measure that is currently before the California legislature that would establish a California Medical Cannabis Research Center at the University of California. Now these are not yet appoved, but it shows AGAIN that you and John have no clue of what you are talking about...AGAIN. Here is one such study by Dr. Kenneth Sufka: Broom SL, Sufka KJ, ElSohly MA, Ross SR (2001) Analgesic and reinforcing properties of D9-THC-hemisuccinate in adjuvant-arthritic rats. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, 1, 171-182. Here is another by the same Dr.: Cannabis Therapeutics in HIV/AIDS, pp. 171-182, 2001 Do I need to find ALL 13? You are wrong AGAIN, get over it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
