SkyDekker 1,465 #101 June 8, 2005 QuoteDo I need to find ALL 13? Well, that is your claim isn't it...that there are 13. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #102 June 8, 2005 QuoteWell, that is your claim isn't it...that there are 13. Here are some more....Now I am tired of this, want more? Try Google. You are already proven wrong and you are just making yourself look worse. QuoteThe studies approved by the DEA are: "Short-Term Effects of Cannabis Therapy on Spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis" Project Director Jody Corey-Bloom, M.D. (UCSD) - An outpatient study of the efficacy and safety of smoked marijuana versus placebo for the treatment of muscle spasms, loss of function, and related pain in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (M.S.). Placebo-controlled, Double-Blind Trial of Medicinal Cannabis in Painful HIV Neuropathy” Project Director Ronald Ellis, M.D., Ph.D., (UCSD) - An outpatient study on the efficacy of smoked marijuana versus placebo for the alleviation of peripheral nerve pain associated with HIV infection. Secondary studies using the same group Quote"Impact of Repeated Cannabis Treatments on Driving Abilities", Project Director Thomas Marcotte, Ph.D., (UCSD) - An outpatient study on the effects of repeated administration of medicinal cannabis on driving ability (acute and/or long-term). Patients with HIV-related neuropathy or spasticity associated with M.S. will be evaluated for impairments using driving simulator assessments. Here is one that may soon be approved (I realize that you cannot count this one...But it just shows AGAIN that you have no clue): QuoteA further study at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is pending DEA approval, anticipated in the near future. "Cannabis for the Treatment of HIV-Related Peripheral Neuropathy", Project Director Donald Abrams, M.D. (UCSF) - An inpatient study on the efficacy of smoked marijuana for the alleviation of peripheral nerve pain associated with HIV infection"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 #103 June 8, 2005 I doubted your 13 clinical studies. You certainly haven't proven there are 13. You talk a lot and claim a lot and tell other people they know nothing...but still haven't seen proof of your 13 clinical studies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #104 June 8, 2005 Quote You talk a lot and claim a lot and tell other people they know nothing...but still haven't seen proof of your 13 clinical studies Try Google...Its clear I will never make you happy...Thats OK with me. Maybe your "expert" you know will help you out. Really try Google, Im done with your childish games."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 #105 June 8, 2005 so I take it you cannot prove your claim of 13...figures. The expert you refer to is one when it comes to tazers...not quite sure what that has to do with marijuana clinical trials.....another discussion where you talk alot, make claims but don't back it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #106 June 8, 2005 SEVEN (7) patients in the whole US getting it legally? And only then because they are grandfathered in from studies started in the '70s (according to your link). WOW, a really statistically significant clinical trial that is. How many clinical trials started in the last 25 years have provided the stuff legally?... 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 #107 June 8, 2005 QuoteSEVEN (7) patients in the whole US getting it legally? And only then because they are grandfathered in from studies started in the '70s (according to your link). WOW, a really statistically significant clinical trial that is. How many clinical trials started in the last 25 years have provided the stuff legally? John 7 people are allowed it due to a test in the 70's. However the University of Mississippi grows 1.5 acres every other year for testing. Quote 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 A short list of stuides that are going on, or will be soon: QuoteThe studies approved by the DEA are: "Short-Term Effects of Cannabis Therapy on Spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis" Project Director Jody Corey-Bloom, M.D. (UCSD) - An outpatient study of the efficacy and safety of smoked marijuana versus placebo for the treatment of muscle spasms, loss of function, and related pain in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (M.S.). Placebo-controlled, Double-Blind Trial of Medicinal Cannabis in Painful HIV Neuropathy” Project Director Ronald Ellis, M.D., Ph.D., (UCSD) - An outpatient study on the efficacy of smoked marijuana versus placebo for the alleviation of peripheral nerve pain associated with HIV infection. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondary studies using the same group -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Impact of Repeated Cannabis Treatments on Driving Abilities", Project Director Thomas Marcotte, Ph.D., (UCSD) - An outpatient study on the effects of repeated administration of medicinal cannabis on driving ability (acute and/or long-term). Patients with HIV-related neuropathy or spasticity associated with M.S. will be evaluated for impairments using driving simulator assessments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is one that may soon be approved (I realize that you cannot count this one...But it just shows AGAIN that you have no clue): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A further study at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is pending DEA approval, anticipated in the near future. "Cannabis for the Treatment of HIV-Related Peripheral Neuropathy", Project Director Donald Abrams, M.D. (UCSF) - An inpatient study on the efficacy of smoked marijuana for the alleviation of peripheral nerve pain associated with HIV infection So it is quite clear that there are studies going on. Look have fun with this...I'm off to school."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 #108 June 8, 2005 However the University of Mississippi grows 1.5 acres every other year for testing? When I attended Ole Miss(the greatest university by the way) the program was shut down by none other than Clinton himself. Did they start it back up?______________________________________________ "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
jlmiracle 7 #109 June 8, 2005 QuoteWhen I attended Ole Miss(the greatest university by the way) the program was shut down Did they shut it down or did you smoke it all I just crack myself up. judyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallingchip 0 #110 June 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhen I attended Ole Miss(the greatest university by the way) the program was shut down Did they shut it down or did you smoke it all I just crack myself up. judy Hey hey hey....come on now....I shared with you and Chris didn't I? I thought yall needed it after that first jump with 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
billvon 2,989 #111 June 8, 2005 In case anyone is interested, "GO FUCK YOURSELF" is a personal attack and will get you banned pretty much every time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallingchip 0 #112 June 8, 2005 QuoteIn case anyone is interested, "GO FUCK YOURSELF" is a personal attack and will get you banned pretty much every time. Ohhhhh......well that explains it. All this time I thought I was getting a tip. I will stop trying.... (Mr. Billvon...That was a joke on me not you sir...______________________________________________ "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
Ron 10 #113 June 8, 2005 QuoteWhen I attended Ole Miss(the greatest university by the way) the program was shut down by none other than Clinton himself. Did they start it back up? I spent some time down there....I put a pool hall together there that was owned by a professor back in 93 or 94. I don't know if the program still is working, but they had 5 years or "product" stored frozen. The A University in CA, has requested the right to grow for testing as well. I have read that it was going to be approved....But don't know if it had been."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 #114 June 8, 2005 Quote I spent some time down there....I put a pool hall together there that was owned by a professor back in 93 or 94. We were there at the same time...what pool hall?______________________________________________ "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
popsjumper 2 #115 June 9, 2005 Quote...Since the days of FDR and the Warren Court of the 60's, it turns out that the government can regulate anything through the commerce clause even if it is noncommercial. It's amazing, isn't it, that Justices like O'Connor, Rehquist and Clarence Thomas are the ones dissenting. It turns out that they believe that the states should have the right to decide what is legal in the states. Meanwhile, the liberals don't hold personal freedoms to be as important as the need for a strong central government. We can't have piss-ant states telling people they are allowed to do things. No, the federal government will tell you what you can and cannot do. Isn't it nice that the federal government protects all of us from the states that allow us to do things that are bad for us?.... Thanks Lawrocket...this is the meat of the issue, not marijuana. A little blurb from the past regarding states' rights: 1765 - In May, in Virginia, Patrick Henry presents seven Virginia Resolutions to the House of Burgesses claiming that only the Virginia assembly can legally tax Virginia residents, saying, "If this be treason, make the most of it."My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #116 June 9, 2005 QuoteCause some disagree:Quote "Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday. Is this the same proven medical system that determined that Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra were good. I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Ron and I agree with the ruling. The supreme court did the right thing. The problem is the federal law, not the court's decision. I am interested to see how this plays out when the supreme court hears the state's right to die case next year since the doctors that legally terminate someone's life in certain states use federally regulated drugs to do so.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #117 June 9, 2005 QuoteI can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Ron Only hurts the first time"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 kallend 2,026 #118 June 9, 2005 Quote Meanwhile, the liberals don't hold personal freedoms to be as important as the need for a strong central government. We can't have piss-ant states telling people they are allowed to do things. The liberals I know hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies.... 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 lawrocket 3 #119 June 9, 2005 QuoteThe liberals I know hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. Really, John? Then explain to me how it is that Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor decided that, in act, states do not have the right to allow it. Read Thomas's dissent. He mentions that potlucks can be regulated. After all, if people do potlucks, it means that these people are not utilizing catering services, which affects interstate commerce. This case basically holds the following (which was first enunciated in Wickard v. Fillburn) - "People who do not affect interstate commerce by definition affect interstate commerce because their failure to affect interstate commerce has a detrimental effect on interstate commerce, which means non-interstate commerce activities can be rugulated." So, people who grow their own pot, wheat, vegetables, etc., for themselves and for nobody else can be regulated by Congress. After all, if they grow their own wheat, they are not buying it in commerce, which effects it. This is CLEARLY a case where the liberals have told people that they cannot grow pot in their own homes, for their own use in their own bedrooms on their own bodies unless the Feds change their policies. Tell me, is Thomas now considered a "liberal?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #120 June 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe liberals I know hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. Really, John? Then explain to me how it is that Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor decided that, in act, states do not have the right to allow it. Read Thomas's dissent. He mentions that potlucks can be regulated. After all, if people do potlucks, it means that these people are not utilizing catering services, which affects interstate commerce. This case basically holds the following (which was first enunciated in Wickard v. Fillburn) - "People who do not affect interstate commerce by definition affect interstate commerce because their failure to affect interstate commerce has a detrimental effect on interstate commerce, which means non-interstate commerce activities can be rugulated." So, people who grow their own pot, wheat, vegetables, etc., for themselves and for nobody else can be regulated by Congress. After all, if they grow their own wheat, they are not buying it in commerce, which effects it. This is CLEARLY a case where the liberals have told people that they cannot grow pot in their own homes, for their own use in their own bedrooms on their own bodies unless the Feds change their policies. Tell me, is Thomas now considered a "liberal?" I don't know any SC justices. Please re-read CAREFULLY what I wrote.... 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 lawrocket 3 #121 June 9, 2005 Okay. You referred to liberals you "know." Then you referred to "conservatives." To read your post carefully, it inherently indicates that you do not "know" any conservatives who think that. After all, your statement with regards to liberals was qualified as those you "know" while there was no qualification for conservatives. Therefore, CAREFULLY reading your posts speaks nothing of my representation that "conservatives" on the SC actually were the only ones lookign for personal freedom. With regards to liberals on the court, if you don't know any of them, then my point is invalid with regards to YOU. But my statement abotu conservatives you DO NOT KNOW, who are included in your broad statement about conservative, fits just fine. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #122 June 10, 2005 QuoteThe liberals ...hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. while this may be a reasonably true generalization for the way each 'side' behaves now it is in polar opposition from what those positions originally were when conservative meant 'conservative use of governmental power' ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #123 June 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe liberals ...hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. while this may be a reasonably true generalization for the way each 'side' behaves now it is in polar opposition from what those positions originally were when conservative meant 'conservative use of governmental power' Not disagreeing with that. In the US the states with the most restrictive laws relating to personal freedoms are the so-called "red" states.getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/redblue-thumb.gif... 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 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 5 of 5 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
Ron 10 #117 June 9, 2005 QuoteI can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Ron Only hurts the first time"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
kallend 2,026 #118 June 9, 2005 Quote Meanwhile, the liberals don't hold personal freedoms to be as important as the need for a strong central government. We can't have piss-ant states telling people they are allowed to do things. The liberals I know hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies.... 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
lawrocket 3 #119 June 9, 2005 QuoteThe liberals I know hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. Really, John? Then explain to me how it is that Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor decided that, in act, states do not have the right to allow it. Read Thomas's dissent. He mentions that potlucks can be regulated. After all, if people do potlucks, it means that these people are not utilizing catering services, which affects interstate commerce. This case basically holds the following (which was first enunciated in Wickard v. Fillburn) - "People who do not affect interstate commerce by definition affect interstate commerce because their failure to affect interstate commerce has a detrimental effect on interstate commerce, which means non-interstate commerce activities can be rugulated." So, people who grow their own pot, wheat, vegetables, etc., for themselves and for nobody else can be regulated by Congress. After all, if they grow their own wheat, they are not buying it in commerce, which effects it. This is CLEARLY a case where the liberals have told people that they cannot grow pot in their own homes, for their own use in their own bedrooms on their own bodies unless the Feds change their policies. Tell me, is Thomas now considered a "liberal?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #120 June 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe liberals I know hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. Really, John? Then explain to me how it is that Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor decided that, in act, states do not have the right to allow it. Read Thomas's dissent. He mentions that potlucks can be regulated. After all, if people do potlucks, it means that these people are not utilizing catering services, which affects interstate commerce. This case basically holds the following (which was first enunciated in Wickard v. Fillburn) - "People who do not affect interstate commerce by definition affect interstate commerce because their failure to affect interstate commerce has a detrimental effect on interstate commerce, which means non-interstate commerce activities can be rugulated." So, people who grow their own pot, wheat, vegetables, etc., for themselves and for nobody else can be regulated by Congress. After all, if they grow their own wheat, they are not buying it in commerce, which effects it. This is CLEARLY a case where the liberals have told people that they cannot grow pot in their own homes, for their own use in their own bedrooms on their own bodies unless the Feds change their policies. Tell me, is Thomas now considered a "liberal?" I don't know any SC justices. Please re-read CAREFULLY what I wrote.... 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
lawrocket 3 #121 June 9, 2005 Okay. You referred to liberals you "know." Then you referred to "conservatives." To read your post carefully, it inherently indicates that you do not "know" any conservatives who think that. After all, your statement with regards to liberals was qualified as those you "know" while there was no qualification for conservatives. Therefore, CAREFULLY reading your posts speaks nothing of my representation that "conservatives" on the SC actually were the only ones lookign for personal freedom. With regards to liberals on the court, if you don't know any of them, then my point is invalid with regards to YOU. But my statement abotu conservatives you DO NOT KNOW, who are included in your broad statement about conservative, fits just fine. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #122 June 10, 2005 QuoteThe liberals ...hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. while this may be a reasonably true generalization for the way each 'side' behaves now it is in polar opposition from what those positions originally were when conservative meant 'conservative use of governmental power' ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #123 June 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe liberals ...hold that the people, not the state or the feds, should make the decisions that apply to themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the ones who wish to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own homes and bedrooms, and with their own bodies. while this may be a reasonably true generalization for the way each 'side' behaves now it is in polar opposition from what those positions originally were when conservative meant 'conservative use of governmental power' Not disagreeing with that. In the US the states with the most restrictive laws relating to personal freedoms are the so-called "red" states.getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/redblue-thumb.gif... 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
