Zenister 0 #51 June 7, 2005 Quote They'll be marginal employees, maybe. BIG maybe... some of the most productive, most intelligent people i have ever met smoke when they are not on the clock... what you do on your own time should be exactly that.... YOUR own time... "the man" does not pay you 24/7____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #52 June 7, 2005 Quote Umm- in case you hadn't noticed, that was a trial on MICE. Are you a mouse? It's easy to claim "no medicinal value" when you threaten any doctor who conducts a clinical trial on a human with a federal felony OK how about this one? On HUMANS and in MD. Quotehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146756,00.html In the study, which appears in the Feb. 8 issue of Neurology, researchers studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers....."The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes," says researcher Ronald Herning, PhD, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (search) in Baltimore, Md Go fish."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 #53 June 7, 2005 QuoteEverybody knows "pot" causes the "munchies" and IS EFFECTIVE in combating the lack of appetite problem. Seeing as how I am watching a loved one going through this and I seeing first hand that "Pot" is more effective than any of the medications she is on. I don't need a buch of politicians telling me something I can see with my own to eyes, especially when 90% of the politicians are wined and dined by the pharmasceutical companies including Mr. John Walters. If it is so effective make it legal by going through the proper channels. Like I have said before and I'll say it again....I don't give a fucking rats ass about Pot. The SC did its job when a State tried to over rule a FEDERAL LAW. Two seperate issues folks. 1. Medical uses for Pot. There is very little if any GOOD uses proven by medical trials. If you want Pot to be legal, try getting some good studies done. Hell, if you just want to blaze up get it made legal to saftey meeting yourself crazy...I don't care. 2. A State trying to over ride a FEDERAL law. THIS is what the SC prevented. They did their job. THIS is the topic of this thread, not the uses of POT...I could not gve a rats ass about the uses of POT. You want to make it legal? Great do it in FEDERAL court since it is a FEDERAL 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 #54 June 7, 2005 QuoteLawrocket covered this angle. The Constitutional backing for this ruling is weak. If so then it will be over turned...Unless you have no faith in the system. I don't see it as weak. A State tried to over ride a FEDERAL LAW. States should not be allowed to do that. You may not like HOW they did it...But still a State should not over ride a FEDERAL LAW. This was a slicky boy attempt to legalize pot in a liberal State full of pot smokers in the hopes that if it was approved for "medical use" it might one day be approved for recreational use. Wanna make it legal? Feel free, but do it legally. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who cares about side effects if the very ill people need the pain killers? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fallingchip covered this one. And like I said, I don't give a shit...If it is so damn good, a "wonder drug", then get the tests done to prove it, and make it legal, legally. QuoteThey did. Put an initiative on the ballot here and the voters passed it. Should be end of story. People in other states have acted accordingly. It shouldn't be necessary to convince a majority of people/states of a practice that is considered acceptable within a single state. Yes, when it is a FEDERAL LAW. States should not trump the Federal Government. QuoteWill you still be a fan of no states rights when another Clinton is in the White House, Ron? Oh God, I hope we are done with Clintons...But ya know what? A FEDERAL LAW is a FEDERAL LAW. States should not be able to trump a FEDERAL LAW. People should quit whinning and make it legal the right way."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 #55 June 7, 2005 Quotethe 'studies' that reported that were about as impartial as a christian who goes to look for God using the bible as his sole source..... they had their answers before they conducted a single test... So you say, so it must be true."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 #56 June 7, 2005 QuoteBritish Journal of Anaesthesia: "Cannabis has a long history of therapeutic use in the Middle East and Asia, with references as early as the 6th century BC... In recent years data have accumulated which supports a therapeutic effect of cannabis for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy for neoplastic disease, spasticity and muscle spasms associated with spinal cord lesions or multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma." Then make it legal the legal way. QuoteWestern Journal of Medicine: "Two-thirds of U.S. doctors believe that the legal penalties for cannabis are too severe, and 41% favor outright legalization for recreational and medical use." Thats not a medical test...Its a poll. Not the same....Even then if you want it legal, make it legal the right way. QuoteUS Institute of Medicine: "The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." Again, make it legal the right way. Quote8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections: "What these data show is that short-term use of marijuana is safe in people with HIV/AIDS who are taking HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy.)" Again make it legal the right way. How many times do I have to say this... I COULD NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT POT!!!! IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT LEGAL....FUCKING DO IT. BUT DO IT LEGALLY. as it stands now it is a FEDERAL LAW, so a State should not be able to over ride it. 2 issues folks, don't try to drag one in to justify the other. The only person on here that had a good argument was Lawrocket...The rest have been crying about the medical uses...AGAIN I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. If it such a damn good drug that will cure everything...make it legal. BUT DO IT LEGALLY. CA did not do it legally and the SC made a ruling that was correct. Seperate the two issues."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 2,112 #57 June 7, 2005 QuoteQuote Umm- in case you hadn't noticed, that was a trial on MICE. Are you a mouse? It's easy to claim "no medicinal value" when you threaten any doctor who conducts a clinical trial on a human with a federal felony OK how about this one? On HUMANS and in MD. Quotehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146756,00.html In the study, which appears in the Feb. 8 issue of Neurology, researchers studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers....."The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes," says researcher Ronald Herning, PhD, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (search) in Baltimore, Md Go fish. Again, not a clinical trial, the physicians didn't prescribe the MJ, they just recruited volunteer users. A physician MAY NOT conduct a clinical trial using MJ. Hence by law it is impossible to prove medicinal value. You DO know what a clinical trial is, don't you?... 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 #58 June 7, 2005 QuoteAgain, not a clinical trial, the physicians didn't prescribe the MJ, they just recruited volunteer users. A physician MAY NOT conduct a clinical trial using MJ. Hence by law it is impossible to prove medicinal value. Well, what is this then? Quotehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/20/thread20529.shtml Currently there are 13 clinical studies and sub-studies of medical marijuana underway in the U.S., according to the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. The U.S. drug company Indevus, based in Lexington, Mass., is testing a pain reliever derived from marijuana that lacks the psychotropic effects of the smoked plant. QuoteYou DO know what a clinical trial is, don't you? Do YOU?"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 2,112 #59 June 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteAgain, not a clinical trial, the physicians didn't prescribe the MJ, they just recruited volunteer users. A physician MAY NOT conduct a clinical trial using MJ. Hence by law it is impossible to prove medicinal value. Well, what is this then? Quotehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/20/thread20529.shtml Currently there are 13 clinical studies and sub-studies of medical marijuana underway in the U.S., according to the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. The U.S. drug company Indevus, based in Lexington, Mass., is testing a pain reliever derived from marijuana that lacks the psychotropic effects of the smoked plant. QuoteYou DO know what a clinical trial is, don't you? Do YOU? From your link: "The FDA has approved marijuana studies and, if it were possible to get marijuana in order to conduct the studies, there would be a lot more research proposed and the FDA would approve more," said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, a lobbying group that seeks to legalize medical marijuana and reform drug-related crime laws. "Our problem is that the [Drug Enforcement Agency] is blocking effective research from moving forward." A physician MAY NOT prescribe MJ 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 #60 June 7, 2005 Quotehow 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 "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 #61 June 7, 2005 QuoteFrom your link: "The FDA has approved marijuana studies and, if it were possible to get marijuana in order to conduct the studies, there would be a lot more research proposed and the FDA would approve more," said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, a lobbying group that seeks to legalize medical marijuana and reform drug-related crime laws. "Our problem is that the [Drug Enforcement Agency] is blocking effective research from moving forward." A physician MAY NOT prescribe MJ legally. You said there were NO clinical trials...Thats just Bull Shit. There are 13 and you are wrong. YOUR DR can't write a script for it, but that does not mean that there are not CLINICAL trials. And your source of the "problem" is a PRO legalization lobby group. Facts are facts, you said there were no studies, and there are 13. You are wrong as hell again, Go fish."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 2,112 #62 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 How does it compare with the number of alcoholics seeking help? A little context, please.... 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 #63 June 7, 2005 QuoteHow does it compare with the number of alcoholics seeking help? A little context, please. Who cares? He asked a question, and I gave the best answer I could find. The number of X to Y does not matter. The number of X's increase IS. You might be able to claim that pot use is the highest ever (pun intended) and THAT might be a factor to look into."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 #64 June 7, 2005 KALLEND....RON....!!!! Just whip your dicks out and see who has the bigger one...______________________________________________ "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
Alias 0 #65 June 7, 2005 QuoteThen make it legal the legal way. So the federal government has the power to punish sick people using cannabis as medicine, on the advice of their doctors, even in states where medical marijuana is allowed. What the federal government doesn't have, even after this decision, is a good reason to do so. Using interstate commerce as the excuse is not a good reason - see the problem here Ron? So the law is flawed and will eventually overturned. In the mean time, the Feds can feel like they are occomplishing something by busting cancer patients with personal gardens. That's effective government Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #66 June 7, 2005 QuoteSo the law is flawed and will eventually overturned. No, it won't be "overturned." That chance is pretty much gone. It can only be repealed. Having withstood this challenge, I don't think this will happen any time soon. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #67 June 7, 2005 QuoteSo the federal government has the power to punish sick people using cannabis as medicine, on the advice of their doctors, even in states where medical marijuana is allowed Yes, 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. QuoteWhat the federal government doesn't have, even after this decision, is a good reason to do so. OK, but that is a seperate issue. If marijuana is good or bad was not for the SCOTUS to decide. What was their job was to decide the legality of a State to make a law countrary to the Federal Law. You may not even like HOW the SC did it, but the rights of the State do not trump the Federal powers. QuoteSo the law is flawed and will eventually overturned. In the mean time, the Feds can feel like they are occomplishing something by busting cancer patients with personal gardens. What about if I want to grow Coke for personal use? What if I can show that Coke makes me feel better, and lets me lose weight, and perform my job better? You need to separate the issues.... If you want to make Pot legal...fine, but getting the State to try and over rule a Federal Law is not the way to do it. Using anecdotal evidence is not the way. QuoteThat's effective government Maybe the best Government in the World, perfect? No, but better than most."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
jlmiracle 7 #68 June 7, 2005 Quotethe STATES do not have the right to allow something outlawed by the FEDERAL government Ron are you still pissed off about the south loosing the civil war? Have a nice day everyone!Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #69 June 7, 2005 QuoteRon are you still pissed off about the south loosing the civil war? Actually I agree with the North, the South had every right to TRY and seperate, but the North had the right to spank that ass back into line."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
Zenister 0 #70 June 7, 2005 Quote of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (search) in Baltimore, Md oh yea.. now there is an impartial study... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #71 June 7, 2005 QuoteQuotethe 'studies' that reported that were about as impartial as a christian who goes to look for God using the bible as his sole source..... they had their answers before they conducted a single test... So you say, so it must be true. when 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 hell, many drug policies and public retoric STILL quotes "Reefer Madness" (indirectly) as a source...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #72 June 7, 2005 QuoteWhat a shame that current "drug" laws can make a useful drug iillegitimate because a law says so. What exactly is the difference to them here? That there is a sub culture that enjoys it in a recreational application and it can be produced by natural means? That they cannot tax it? Let the patient suffering from chronic pain, cancer, nausea, AIDS wasting, lack of appetite, schizophrenia, glaucoma and especially nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy continue to suffer - because Congress calls it "illegal"? Just re-god-damn-diculous Alias, of all the studies done on the subject, not one has determined that pot is affective anymore than other medicinal treatments. On top of that, Smoke is a toxin. Like it ir not, it is BAD for you in the long run. So, 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. It is such a stupid argument to make that people "Need pot". They don't. Again, in all test and studies done, Pot was NOT found to be anymore effective than other "Legal" treatments already on the market. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #73 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. Because codine is addicting and the more you take the more you need. Codine greatly upsets my stomach. What are the long term health risks associated with pot? jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #74 June 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo, 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. Because codine is addicting and the more you take the more you need. Codine greatly upsets my stomach. What are the long term health risks associated with pot? j See... Codine was an Example..That is why I said "For arguments sake )mainly used codince cuz I can actually spell it :-) Addictive or not, it is regulated by your doctor (or should be). Don't tell me that pot used medically isan't addictive either. FYI- There was a guy on the CBS evening news last night !!! Comical to say the least. He says, "Due to his tumors" he has to smoke pot 30-35 time A DAY!!!!! Yeah... sure you do!! Long term health risks with Pot??? That is a silly question. Look at any study regarding the inhalation of smoke toxins... QuoteSmoking marijuana is associated with increased risk of many of the same symptoms as smoking cigarettes--chronic bronchitis, coughing on most days, phlegm production, shortness of breath, and wheezing, according to a Yale study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. In addition, marijuana smoking may increase risk of respiratory exposure by infectious organisms, such as fungi and molds, since cannabis plants are contaminated with a range of fungal spores, said Brent Moore, assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine and lead author of the study. http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7284 ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #75 June 7, 2005 okay but its still not as bad as text messaging! jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
