Irony re: marijuana

[Borillar]

Feds at the nci report pot has effects in stalling certain cancers. Shocker.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

 

[KevinWestern]

Probably because it was popular with negroes.

And Reefer Madness.

So if the law was passed based on racism and misinformation, do you really need a reason to legalize it?

Seems to me that those who want it to remain illegal have some 'splainin' to do.

Like - why?

I'm fine with pot being legalized. It is no more addictive or debilitating than alcohol.

And arguably much less, too.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

They cannot legalize it. Where would they get prisoners to work for Obama at $1.40 an hour? Don't you realise Obama has now put prisons into the export business to compete with NK slaves and Chinese slave labor? This is his idea of creating jobs and economic growth. The more he can arrest and put to work the richer the federal govt will become.

In the fine print, the govt promises not to compete with private businesses here in USA who cannot afford to compete with labor at a dollar - forty cents an hour and do you know how they will manage that? He claims the merchandise made in prison won't be identical to merchandise made by private businesses here. Right. He will have them making white tennis shoes instead of black ones and still get away with it.

I was in prison in the 80's and forced to build outbuildings for sale to the public. My pay was .65 per day and get this.....Obama wasn't president.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRl315arbl0]Can't be too long - Grand Funk Railroad - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Rocko]

The last thing we need is a more liberal society towards drugs.

 

[g5000]

Feds at the nci report pot has effects in stalling certain cancers. Shocker.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

That a drug has medicinal uses is not an argument for recreational use. For example, just because heroin has a medical use does not mean it is good for you to use for fun.

 

[KevinWestern]

Feds at the nci report pot has effects in stalling certain cancers. Shocker.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

Good point! I think the Pharmaceutical companies are one of the biggest reasons it's still not legal. Cheap effective all natural cures - no way!

Also, I think our prison system (and everyone involved) also have a lot to lose from the legalization of the drug.

Hardly good reasons though, eh?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They cannot legalize it. Where would they get prisoners to work for Obama at $1.40 an hour? Don't you realise Obama has now put prisons into the export business to compete with NK slaves and Chinese slave labor? This is his idea of creating jobs and economic growth. The more he can arrest and put to work the richer the federal govt will become.

In the fine print, the govt promises not to compete with private businesses here in USA who cannot afford to compete with labor at a dollar - forty cents an hour and do you know how they will manage that? He claims the merchandise made in prison won't be identical to merchandise made by private businesses here. Right. He will have them making white tennis shoes instead of black ones and still get away with it.

I was in prison in the 80's and forced to build outbuildings for sale to the public. My pay was .65 per day and get this.....Obama wasn't president.

Yes and that would be illegal according to our Constitution you see. Still what Obama has planned is an export business to compete with the Communist nations at slave labor rates. The American prison population is the largest in the world. Do you realise this? So how did Obama get away with this? They claimed it was just an extension of the making license plates idea - still in a city debate which I attended - it was decided that what Obama is doing is unconstitutional. In fact, much of what Obama does is in violation of the Constitution. NOTE*** Think about the ramifications of this for a moment. If a prisoner happens to be exceptionally good at building computers they might deny his parole in order to hang on to their "asset".. How would you like to have been kept on the farm building outbuildings for an extra 20 yrs because they liked your work and decided to "keep you"? Yeah. I thought so.. - Jeremiah

That activity be it legal or not is what saved my life. Taught me skills that gave me an alternative to a life of crime.

If you don't like the idea of hard labor for next to no pay don't goto prison.

Personally I look back upon my experience and I thank god they didnt just lock me in a cell with a tv.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Feds at the nci report pot has effects in stalling certain cancers. Shocker.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, but I'm not too involved in finding reasons for it to be legalized. I'm still trying to figure out why it was made illegal in the first place.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDKfj7X8A0]Grass - The History of Marijuana (Narrated By Woody Harrelson) - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[nodoginnafight]

So if the law was passed based on racism and misinformation, do you really need a reason to legalize it?

Seems to me that those who want it to remain illegal have some 'splainin' to do.

Like - why?

I'm fine with pot being legalized. It is no more addictive or debilitating than alcohol.

And arguably much less, too.

Why get bogged down in that argument?
No need to prove pot is "good for you" or "better for you than ..."
The burden of proof should be on the folks who want to restrict it's use.

 

[Borillar]

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

That a drug has medicinal uses is not an argument for recreational use. For example, just because heroin has a medical use does not mean it is good for you to use for fun.

Conversely, just because something is fun doesn't mean it should be made illegal either.

 

[g5000]

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

Good point! I think the Pharmaceutical companies are one of the biggest reasons it's still not legal. Cheap effective all natural cures - no way!

Also, I think our prison system (and everyone involved) also have a lot to lose from the legalization of the drug.

Hardly good reasons though, eh?

You are both only making an argument for medical marijuana.

You are not making an argument for legalizing marijuana for everyone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, but I'm not too involved in finding reasons for it to be legalized. I'm still trying to figure out why it was made illegal in the first place.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDKfj7X8A0]Grass - The History of Marijuana (Narrated By Woody Harrelson) - YouTube[/ame]​

Thanks, but the question was really rhetorical. I was inviting someone to provide a legitimate reason for restricting its use.

 

[KevinWestern]

That was a lung cancer study. The mice in that study were given THC by liquid directly injected into the stomach (gavage).

I'm sure the effectiveness of pot against lung cancer would have been much different if they smoked it.

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

That a drug has medicinal uses is not an argument for recreational use. For example, just because heroin has a medical use does not mean it is good for you to use for fun.

Yes, but something doesn't need to be useful to be legal, and shouldn't be the focus of the argument.

The focus is... is marijuana so dangerous to a population that it's worth locking up millions of Americans every year (and destroying families, futures, ect)? Is it such a threat to society that it's worth making illegal and giving untold power to the street gangs and violent cartels (how many alcohol cartels do you know of)?

The pros of legalization (in my view) greatly outweigh the cons. There's no good reason for it to be illegal.

Again, you can't overdose, people who smoke it are calm, responsive, complacent (one can make rational decisions on pot and function, whereas not so much heroin, ect), it's non addictive, ect, ect.

Agree or disagree?

 

[g5000]

There is already THC in a pill. Marinol. So the mice cancer study, which injected THC directly into their stomachs, supports the legalization of Marinol.

 

[g5000]

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

That a drug has medicinal uses is not an argument for recreational use. For example, just because heroin has a medical use does not mean it is good for you to use for fun.

Yes, but something doesn't need to be useful to be legal, and shouldn't be the focus of the argument.

The focus is... is marijuana so dangerous to a population that it's worth locking up millions of Americans every year (and destroying families, futures, ect)?

Again, you can't overdose, people who smoke it are calm, responsive, complacent (one can make rational decisions on pot and function, whereas not so much heroin, ect), it's non addictive, ect, ect.

Agree or disagree?

That is not the argument that was being made with the studies. That is just an argument that THC is a great medicine. It does not provide any support to legalizing it for recreational use.

 

[Borillar]

Perhaps, although I don't believe there are any studies correlating cannabis use with lung cancer. There are other ways of taking it besides smoking.

Cannabis has been shown to have several medical uses. It is an effective anti-emetic for people on chemo therapy. It can relieve interocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It is an anti-spasmodic and a pain reliever.

Really no reason I can think of for it to be illegal, except that anyone can grow it. Then there is no money for big pharma.

Good point! I think the Pharmaceutical companies are one of the biggest reasons it's still not legal. Cheap effective all natural cures - no way!

Also, I think our prison system (and everyone involved) also have a lot to lose from the legalization of the drug.

Hardly good reasons though, eh?

You are both only making an argument for medical marijuana.

You are not making an argument for legalizing marijuana for everyone.

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory." T.H. White

 

[g5000]

Radioactive iodine is a great medical treatment. Cures cancer and stuff. Lots of studies have proven this.

Were I to then argue that we should legalize radioactive iodine for recreational use based on the fact it cures cancer, you would quickly see just how stupid an argument that is.

So you guys are coming at this from an entirely wrong angle.

You need to prove it is HARMLESS FOR RECREATIONAL USE.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Feds at the nci report pot has effects in stalling certain cancers. Shocker.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

Marijuana:

1.) Positive Health Effects
2.) Impossible to overdose on
3.) All natural, non-toxic
4.) When you smoke it, you become calm, cautious, and reflective.

(compare those with the effects of alcohol)

So why is this not legal again, and why are we ruining millions of lives/families by locking up people for years for their involvement with the drug?

The DEA has convinced TOO many people they have some kind o' Divine Right to job-security.​

 

[KevinWestern]

That a drug has medicinal uses is not an argument for recreational use. For example, just because heroin has a medical use does not mean it is good for you to use for fun.

Yes, but something doesn't need to be useful to be legal, and shouldn't be the focus of the argument.

The focus is... is marijuana so dangerous to a population that it's worth locking up millions of Americans every year (and destroying families, futures, ect)?

Again, you can't overdose, people who smoke it are calm, responsive, complacent (one can make rational decisions on pot and function, whereas not so much heroin, ect), it's non addictive, ect, ect.

Agree or disagree?

That is not the argument that was being made with the studies. That is just an argument that THC is a great medicine. It does not provide any support to legalizing it for recreational use.

Again, my argument is totally separate from the medical marijuana angle. The post your referencing is simply a conversation I'm having with another USMB poster.

However, marijuana should be legal simply because it does not pose a large enough threat to society to spend all the time and energy prohibiting it. We are all worse off by prohibiting it.

And ultimately, isn't that the #1 purpose of a law...to make us all better off than if it did not exist?

Things like rape, extortion, murder, assault; those are illegal for a reason because in the absence of those laws we'd all be worse off. It's worth policing people and sending perpetrators to jail for those offenses.

What justification do we have for spending precious time and resources policing a drug that:
1.) Can't kill you
2.) Is not toxic
3.) When you smoke it you're calm and reflective
4.) Can be grown naturally and safely

and finally...

Question of the Day: What benefit do we get (as a society) for sending millions to jail over pot, and for lining the pockets of the drug cartels?


.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Radioactive iodine is a great medical treatment. Cures cancer and stuff. Lots of studies have proven this.

Were I to then argue that we should legalize radioactive iodine for recreational use based on the fact it cures cancer, you would quickly see just how stupid an argument that is.

So you guys are coming at this from an entirely wrong angle.

You need to prove it is HARMLESS FOR RECREATIONAL USE.

I agree up to the last point. IMHO the burden of proof should rest with those who want it restricted. But, since it is already restricted I see the practical truth of your point. Those who seek the change are usually the ones who have to justify the change.