[quote]streamline wrote:
Repeated studies show Hemp oil as a major medicine from cancer fighting to seizures.
[/quote]
All other stuff aside, lets analyze this comment.
Do you really believe that if Hemp Oil was the a major medical discovery that Pharmaceutical companies would not be making and selling this miracle cure already?
[/quote]
I guess because they can not. One can not patent a natural substance, [/quote]
Aspirin.
Sorry dude, I’m out. [/quote]
Aspirin is synthesized, so it’s not a naturally-occurring substance.
[quote]streamline wrote:
Repeated studies show Hemp oil as a major medicine from cancer fighting to seizures.
[/quote]
All other stuff aside, lets analyze this comment.
Do you really believe that if Hemp Oil was the a major medical discovery that Pharmaceutical companies would not be making and selling this miracle cure already?
[/quote]
I guess because they can not. One can not patent a natural substance, [/quote]
Aspirin.
Sorry dude, I’m out. [/quote]
Aspirin is synthesized, so it’s not a naturally-occurring substance.[/quote]
Yes I know its Wiki, but willow bark is the origin. A lot of products started out as natural occurring and then were synthesized due to easier to manufacture.
[quote]streamline wrote:
Repeated studies show Hemp oil as a major medicine from cancer fighting to seizures.
[/quote]
All other stuff aside, lets analyze this comment.
Do you really believe that if Hemp Oil was the a major medical discovery that Pharmaceutical companies would not be making and selling this miracle cure already?
[/quote]
I guess because they can not. One can not patent a natural substance, [/quote]
Aspirin.
Sorry dude, I’m out. [/quote]
Aspirin is synthesized, so it’s not a naturally-occurring substance.[/quote]
Yes I know its Wiki, but willow bark is the origin. A lot of products started out as natural occurring and then were synthesized due to easier to manufacture. [/quote]
The crazier sect of my profession insists that giving patients white willow bark for their pain conditions is somehow better for them than taking an aspirin. They just ignore that it’s the exact same active ingredient, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. Not only that, but white willow bark has the benefit of not having a standardized potency so you get to have fun guessing how much acetylsalicylic acid you’ve ingested.
[quote]streamline wrote:
Repeated studies show Hemp oil as a major medicine from cancer fighting to seizures.
[/quote]
All other stuff aside, lets analyze this comment.
Do you really believe that if Hemp Oil was the a major medical discovery that Pharmaceutical companies would not be making and selling this miracle cure already?
[/quote]
I guess because they can not. One can not patent a natural substance, [/quote]
Aspirin.
Sorry dude, I’m out. [/quote]
Aspirin is synthesized, so it’s not a naturally-occurring substance.[/quote]
Yes I know its Wiki, but willow bark is the origin. A lot of products started out as natural occurring and then were synthesized due to easier to manufacture. [/quote]
The crazier sect of my profession insists that giving patients white willow bark for their pain conditions is somehow better for them than taking an aspirin. They just ignore that it’s the exact same active ingredient, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. Not only that, but white willow bark has the benefit of not having a standardized potency so you get to have fun guessing how much acetylsalicylic acid you’ve ingested.
[/quote]
You crazy Chiros and your voodoo medicine
[quote]streamline wrote:
Repeated studies show Hemp oil as a major medicine from cancer fighting to seizures.
[/quote]
All other stuff aside, lets analyze this comment.
Do you really believe that if Hemp Oil was the a major medical discovery that Pharmaceutical companies would not be making and selling this miracle cure already?
[/quote]
I guess because they can not. One can not patent a natural substance, [/quote]
Aspirin.
Sorry dude, I’m out. [/quote]
Aspirin is synthesized, so it’s not a naturally-occurring substance.[/quote]
Yes I know its Wiki, but willow bark is the origin. A lot of products started out as natural occurring and then were synthesized due to easier to manufacture. [/quote]
The crazier sect of my profession insists that giving patients white willow bark for their pain conditions is somehow better for them than taking an aspirin. They just ignore that it’s the exact same active ingredient, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. Not only that, but white willow bark has the benefit of not having a standardized potency so you get to have fun guessing how much acetylsalicylic acid you’ve ingested.
[/quote]
You crazy Chiros and your voodoo medicine [/quote]
Not me I swear! The crazies are down to under 18% of the profession but they still have a loud presence.
[quote]streamline wrote:
Repeated studies show Hemp oil as a major medicine from cancer fighting to seizures.
[/quote]
All other stuff aside, lets analyze this comment.
Do you really believe that if Hemp Oil was the a major medical discovery that Pharmaceutical companies would not be making and selling this miracle cure already?
[/quote]
I guess because they can not. One can not patent a natural substance, [/quote]
Aspirin.
Sorry dude, I’m out. [/quote]
Aspirin is synthesized, so it’s not a naturally-occurring substance.[/quote]
Yes I know its Wiki, but willow bark is the origin. A lot of products started out as natural occurring and then were synthesized due to easier to manufacture. [/quote]
The crazier sect of my profession insists that giving patients white willow bark for their pain conditions is somehow better for them than taking an aspirin. They just ignore that it’s the exact same active ingredient, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. Not only that, but white willow bark has the benefit of not having a standardized potency so you get to have fun guessing how much acetylsalicylic acid you’ve ingested.
[/quote]
You crazy Chiros and your voodoo medicine [/quote]
Not me I swear! The crazies are down to under 18% of the profession but they still have a loud presence.
[/quote]
lol I know you are not man, just messing with you.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
It’s kept around because the middle-aged population grew up with “reefer madness” and can’t seem to let go of the idea that weed is a boogeyman because it challenges something that they learned growing up. It’s always tough to combat those opinions precisely because they aren’t evidence based.[/quote]
While it may be an appeal to tradition, I think your judgment of the age of those “holding back” legalization and reference to “reefer madness” is off base.
I would imagine, unless your idea of middle age is 60+, you would find more “middle aged” people okay with legalization than not. [/quote]
Yea what is middle aged? Im 41 and considered by most as middle aged. Reefer madness was in the 50’s for God’s sake. [/quote]
In my mind I was thinking of the people who are most likely to vote, which is an older crowd. Idk though, I would consider 50s and 60s middle-aged.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
It’s kept around because the middle-aged population grew up with “reefer madness” and can’t seem to let go of the idea that weed is a boogeyman because it challenges something that they learned growing up. It’s always tough to combat those opinions precisely because they aren’t evidence based.[/quote]
While it may be an appeal to tradition, I think your judgment of the age of those “holding back” legalization and reference to “reefer madness” is off base.
I would imagine, unless your idea of middle age is 60+, you would find more “middle aged” people okay with legalization than not. [/quote]
Yea what is middle aged? Im 41 and considered by most as middle aged. Reefer madness was in the 50’s for God’s sake. [/quote]
In my mind I was thinking of the people who are most likely to vote, which is an older crowd. Idk though, I would consider 50s and 60s middle-aged.[/quote]
Okay, well for perspective my dad is 59 and was a child of the 70’s pretty sure there was some weed smoked in the 70’s. I could be wrong since I was just a baby then, but I’m still pretty sure a few people smoked. Also pretty sure there was some smoking going on in the mid to late 60’s, again I was not alive but I’ve heard a few things.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Okay, well for perspective my dad is 59 and was a child of the 70’s pretty sure there was some weed smoked in the 70’s. I could be wrong since I was just a baby then, but I’m still pretty sure a few people smoked. Also pretty sure there was some smoking going on in the mid to late 60’s, again I was not alive but I’ve heard a few things. [/quote]
I believe what he meant was, the whole “reefer madness” scare was a phenomenon of the 1950s.
In fact, it was much earlier than that. The prohibition of cannabis came in the 30s, hot on the heels of the repeal of “big P” Prohibition, when it became legal once again to consume really dangerous drugs like gin and whisky and rum.
The busybodies in America had grown restless, and the lack of anything to prohibit made them sad, so they went after cannabis, both in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.
Coinciding with the Department of Prohibition’s campaign to outlaw cannabis, the evils of the demon weed were splashed across the silver screen in 1937, in the eponymous film “Reefer Madness” (originally entitled “Tell Your Children”) a hilarious propagandizing morality play about the imagined dire dangers of “marihuana”.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Okay, well for perspective my dad is 59 and was a child of the 70’s pretty sure there was some weed smoked in the 70’s. I could be wrong since I was just a baby then, but I’m still pretty sure a few people smoked. Also pretty sure there was some smoking going on in the mid to late 60’s, again I was not alive but I’ve heard a few things. [/quote]
I believe what he meant was, the whole “reefer madness” scare was a phenomenon of the 1950s.
In fact, it was much earlier than that. The prohibition of cannabis came in the 30s, hot on the heels of the repeal of “big P” Prohibition, when it became legal once again to consume really dangerous drugs like gin and whisky and rum.
The busybodies in America had grown restless, and the lack of anything to prohibit made them sad, so they went after cannabis, both in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.
Coinciding with the Department of Prohibition’s campaign to outlaw cannabis, the evils of the demon weed were splashed across the silver screen in 1937, in the eponymous film “Reefer Madness” (originally entitled “Tell Your Children”) a hilarious propagandizing morality play about the imagined dire dangers of “marihuana”.
You can find it on YouTube.
[/quote]
Sigh yes I am aware of that man, your killing my sarcasm with facts.
And for the record I was the one who said the 50’s he said middle age.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
It’s kept around because the middle-aged population grew up with “reefer madness” and can’t seem to let go of the idea that weed is a boogeyman because it challenges something that they learned growing up. It’s always tough to combat those opinions precisely because they aren’t evidence based.[/quote]
While it may be an appeal to tradition, I think your judgment of the age of those “holding back” legalization and reference to “reefer madness” is off base.
I would imagine, unless your idea of middle age is 60+, you would find more “middle aged” people okay with legalization than not. [/quote]
Yea what is middle aged? Im 41 and considered by most as middle aged. Reefer madness was in the 50’s for God’s sake. [/quote]
In my mind I was thinking of the people who are most likely to vote, which is an older crowd. Idk though, I would consider 50s and 60s middle-aged.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call 60’s middle age, but that is irrelevant here, lol.
You’re right, big picture and I’m picking on minor details in your posts. The issue is that older generation are much closer to 50/50 than younger ones, and the older generations actually vote. So, like I said, you’re correct in the macro. I was just nipping at semantics really.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
It’s kept around because the middle-aged population grew up with “reefer madness” and can’t seem to let go of the idea that weed is a boogeyman because it challenges something that they learned growing up. It’s always tough to combat those opinions precisely because they aren’t evidence based.[/quote]
While it may be an appeal to tradition, I think your judgment of the age of those “holding back” legalization and reference to “reefer madness” is off base.
I would imagine, unless your idea of middle age is 60+, you would find more “middle aged” people okay with legalization than not. [/quote]
Yea what is middle aged? Im 41 and considered by most as middle aged. Reefer madness was in the 50’s for God’s sake. [/quote]
In my mind I was thinking of the people who are most likely to vote, which is an older crowd. Idk though, I would consider 50s and 60s middle-aged.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Colorado Governor: Legalising pot was a bad idea
Marijuana poisonings on alarming rise:
Did you read the articles you posted?
CO Governor says being the first state to legalize has been a challenge because of the federal regulatory environment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with health risks.
The second article say that calls to poison control - not poisonings - is up.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Colorado Governor: Legalising pot was a bad idea
[/quote]
In all fairness it should be mentioned that Gov. Hickenlooper is a statist, a progressive, a gun grabber, and all around asshole. As such, the value of his opinion, in my view, is severely degraded (even if his opinion happens to be correct). [/quote]
Reefer madness was in the 50’s for God’s sake. [/quote]