Marijuana has NO medical purposes and should be classified like heroin

Cocaine and albuterol don't mix either, so if you have asthma, no coke for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What happens if you inhale the albuterol then do some coke?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is funny cause back in the day when cocaine usage was threw the roof some people I knew would put cocaine in there eye. Yeah I personally used it as a sex tool . Yeah A little on the young vagina ( I was young then 2 ) and a little up the nose . Makes for good fucking let Me tell you . We would do it for hours , but those days have been long gone . I Have not done any cocaine for 28 years now. I do still fuck though , so I guess I didn't need the cocaine for that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your heart kinda stops working instantly. Or at least it can.

 

I asked you to cite your sources while making comments on this topic a couple times without response, so you will forgive my cynicism when you speak on it, Cosmic. Nothing personal, but this is one of my serious study areas and I am just sick and tired of all the hooey thrown around in it. Remember - this is supposed to be a science forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

CASE # 1: California

When CA passed MMJ, up front was a single case. A woman was in a car wreck. She was sliced up very badly, lots of broken bones, lots of surgeries. hundreds of stitches. Her husband was killed leaving her to raise their 3 children on her own.

Then she got breast cancer, had surgery, chemo and radiation. Lots of vomiting, lost lots of weight. Then she got MS. Docs gave her scripts for a half dozen opiates to deal with the pain. When she took those, the pain went away but she lay on the couch doing nothing all day every day.

But somebody had to raise the kids and take care of the house business. She quit the opiates cold turkey and substituted cannabis. Her statement was that cannabis did not eliminate the pain, but it made it possible for her to tolerate the pain and to take care of her kids. This is a common observation from extreme pain patients in similar circumstances. She got busted for growing a plant in her back yard.

 

CASE # 2: Ontario, Canada.

A Toronto resident by the name of Terry was epileptic. He was on 3 major scripts to try and control his epilepsy. Those scripts kept him to 6 grande mal seizures a week and hundreds of petite mal seizures.

Then he encountered cannabis. When he added that to his regimen, it completely eliminated his grande mal seizures and cut the petite mal seizures down to just a few every week. He was thrilled, but being totally disabled could not afford the street prices of cannabis, so he grew a plant on his Toronto high - rise apartment balcony.

Somebody saw the plant, dropped a dime on him and he was arrested. The po - po took away his cannabis when they threw him into the jail cell. The cell had a steel toilet bolted to the concrete floor and a steel bunk bolted to the concrete wall. The walls and floor were all concrete save for one wall of steel bars.

His lawyer went to a judge in emergency and stated that Terry must be given his cannabis before he had a grande mal seizure or he would kill himself flailing around while having a seizure.

The judge not only ordered Terry released from jail and his cannabis given back, he "read down" the provincial laws against cannabis use and possession for medicinal purposes, declaring them to be unconstitutional as they constituted cruel and unusual punishment of persons with legitimate medical conditions.

...and that, children, is how Canada came to legalize the medicinal use of cannabis.

 

I accidentally found pot to be really useful for pain myself.

I was 20, and my arm had only been spectacularly broken a year ago...still very easy to hurt the regrowing muscles-plus all the pins and plates didn't have bone grown over them at the time...and I went tubing all day. The next day I had that fun "Rats gnawing on the inside of my forearm" feeling. And we were all getting high-it was that sort of a camping trip (we were happy campers), yes...and much to my surprise I found the pain gone and the stiffness improved once stoned.

These days, every few years or so I manage to throw out my back-it has osteophytes and a blown disc. Pot would be swell, but I have to pee in a cup.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I seem to remember reading one of the isolates from marijuana is being investigated in Canada as an antidepressant...and it's not the THC, it's another chemical component, not one that gets you high.

But it won't be found here...might not even be legalized here.

Here people have to fight to get adequate pain control because the government's afraid of making addicts. If someone's in that much pain that their choice is to be in agony or addicted to meds?
I think they deserve to make that choice on their own, not have the government make it.

You can put LSD in your eye too.
Good luck finding it these days!
Man, hovercraft mode on the car that one time was coolness.

'Shrooms though...just find some cowflop from a grain-fed cow...put it somewhere dark, cool and moist for a bit... and, after checking your ID picture carefully...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eace:

 

The scientific data on this is so overwhelming that it's a completely cynical stance for the government to keep insisting that it's a dangerous drug with no health benefits.
I've heard doctors/researchers say that it's the single naturally existent molecule with the most health benefits.

It's so sad that this is going to be appealed again and the court will stand with the government again.

 

Can you proovide us with some links that show where tests are made that show how benifical marijuana is and by which reputable scientists as well? Thanks. Otherwise your just giving your opinions about what you think.

 

Crazy.

Tip. For anyone who wants to really screw up their life.
If you want a drug like heroin, just complain of terrible pain in your joints.
Hobble around, and make wincing faces.
The doctor will prescribe you a legal drug, which is along the lines of heroin, but not quite as enjoyable.
Go back after a couple of weeks and repeat performance.
Ooooooh, Doctor, it's a bit better but the pain is terrible.
Ditto, but a more powerful drug.
After a few weeks of doctor's appointments, you too can become a drug addict, legally.

Go on, do it.
Become a complete fuck-up!"

The problem with Heroin and its buddies is not the enjoyment of it, it is the fact that you need more and more of it to achieve the same effect.
Soon, you too can rob handbags.

On the other hand, you can have a few cannabis joints and become a registered criminal.
Aaaaaaargh! I just want to bash my head against this keyboard.

Bash Bash Bash!

and some more

Bashjjjhk Bashjjjhk Bassadhjjjhk !

 

*straps bicycle helmet on Kremmie's head.*

*nods*

 

I observe that you are attempting to apply logic to a non-applicable situation, that being the decision making processes of individuals and collectives of our species.

Far more rewarding to stand clear and merely observe the spectacle, IMO.

Much easier on the frontal lobe and the keyboard.

Very thoughtful of chimpkin to provide a helmet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK gang, here is a very small sample, a 'taster' as they say:

Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded

6631Share


10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
1997
THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

Hey Cosmic - would you like some serious scientific reading on this topic as well? I have a substantial list of books on this topic as well. I suggest you start with a general directed search at Science Daily to get going though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So... you're saying you have never seen a reputable peer reviewed article on a double-blind human study showing beneficial effects of marijuana therapy?

Do you not read about research at all?

Here, procon.org will make it really easy for you.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884


You should probably also take note that a lot of these studies happen outside of the US, because not only it is nearly impossible to obtain marijuana legally for studies, it's also nearly impossible for research institutions to gain permission to grow it to use in studies.
US government doesn't want this looked into, period.

 

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 12, 2005

For decades, the federal government has been the nation's only legal producer of marijuana for medical research. Working with growers at the University of Mississippi, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has controlled both the quality and distribution of the drug for the past 36 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121100825.html

So you say the government doesn't do any studies?

By this article it seems to me they most certainly do and that information comes from a very reputable source.

 

...wow, that is interesting. Someones credibility went way down.

 

Did you actually bother to read this article?

Haven't you been maintaining otherwise? One would think a person would provide citations which support his contentions, rather than contradict.

 

Parmalee, read the first paragraph in the article. It contradicts the "story" told by Varda. That is what cosmic pointed out.

 

You'll find the issue is more than just what certain people take at face value.

I'm pretty sure if you chased the figures of "What people on Social Security/Disability Benefits spend their money on" you'll find a great deal of it heading towards purchasing cannabis, obviously the argument will be that it's for easing their disability, but the reality is that for the most part they don't actually have a real disability.

In fact it's a mixture of them being lazy or just being too stoned to operate as a functional human being, I'm guessing that the governments observe this discrepancy and see the vast loss in funding through both not gaining taxes from someone that should work and through actually supporting their "habit".

It's likely for this reason alone, it will not support Cannabis as a "treatment". (After all those posed "disabled" shouldn't be getting money, let alone ex-recreational/treatment drugs)

It's not just about the direct effects of the drug, or the secondary effects of the drug, it's about the attitudes of the people that use it and how their recreational activity undermines society as a whole. (e.g. Not turning up to work on time, being moody, The effect on friends and family through negative interactions etc)

I'm sure there will be people attempt to contest these points, however these points are based upon facts, that are observable (At least by those that aren't stoned or indoctrinated)

 

Of course the federal government is the only legal producer. They are the ones who made it illegal for everyone else.

Did I say that? I think what I said is that they don't want this looked into, and that is obviously deducted from your sources alone. The substance is made illegal and inaccessible, and anyone who wishes to study it have to go through them.
Marijuana is so obviously medicinal that, even with this choke, lots of evidence comes from research even here in the US.
Then, the government either ignores it or makes it go away.