Legalizing Weed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

By the way, just for kicks, the “questionnaire” that Dr. Professor X wants to discredit in the name of “science” is as follows:

-Conducted by John Charles A. Lacson MS, Joshua D. Carroll BA, Ellenie Tuazon MPH, Esteban J. Castelao MD, PhD, Leslie Bernstein PhD, and Victoria K. Cortessis MSPH, PhD

(but according to Dr. Professor X, these are probably just old white guys with a political agenda, amirite?)

-the study was published in Cancer, the medical journal associated with the American Cancer Society

(again, the American Cancer Society must be one of them fly-by-night hack job outfits of old white guys who are just trying to keep the weed down and who don’t recognize a “questionnaire” when they see one)

Not hard to see why this thread went belly up.

482

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.
[/quote]

Mood elevation, being a natural anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, and appetite stimulation don’t count as positive benefits?[/quote]

I do not smoke nor care whether it is legal or not but, the benefits that moderate alcohol consumption may give are different from marijuana.

Where as alcohol may be beneficial as a preventative measure and for overall health: A few being.

-reducing stroke/heart risks
-type 2 diabetes, bone protection
-cognitive decline
-raising HDL cholesterol levels.

The benefits you listed for marijuana seem to help a small/specific portion of people, those with diseases. Why would the average person for health or prevention need an anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, or appetite stimulant?

[/quote]

Actually if you saw the link to the SCRIPPS research I posted you’d see implication of it to prevent cognitive decline.

483

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.
[/quote]

Mood elevation, being a natural anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, and appetite stimulation don’t count as positive benefits?[/quote]

I do not smoke nor care whether it is legal or not but, the benefits that moderate alcohol consumption may give are different from marijuana.

Where as alcohol may be beneficial as a preventative measure and for overall health: A few being.

-reducing stroke/heart risks
-type 2 diabetes, bone protection
-cognitive decline
-raising HDL cholesterol levels.

The benefits you listed for marijuana seem to help a small/specific portion of people, those with diseases. Why would the average person for health or prevention need an anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, or appetite stimulant?

[/quote]

Mood elevation is for people with diseases? You are saying healthy people do not get nauseated?

The bottom line is it hasn’t been studied in those terms yet so making some list of pro’s and cons based on limited biased data is pointless.

What we do know is it decreased lung cancer strains in studies…and I don’t know about you…but fighting cancer is a pretty big “benefit”.

484

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, just for kicks, the “questionnaire” that Dr. Professor X wants to discredit in the name of “science” is as follows:

-Conducted by John Charles A. Lacson MS, Joshua D. Carroll BA, Ellenie Tuazon MPH, Esteban J. Castelao MD, PhD, Leslie Bernstein PhD, and Victoria K. Cortessis MSPH, PhD

(but according to Dr. Professor X, these are probably just old white guys with a political agenda, amirite?)

-the study was published in Cancer, the medical journal associated with the American Cancer Society

(again, the American Cancer Society must be one of them fly-by-night hack job outfits of old white guys who are just trying to keep the weed down and who don’t recognize a “questionnaire” when they see one)

Not hard to see why this thread went belly up.

[/quote]

?

It doesn’t matter who conducted the questionnaire…it is still a questionnaire. People lie. People get things wrong and don’t remember correctly. These things are called human error and why double blind tests reviewed by accredited sources beat asking 100 people a question.

You see, people like you would ignore the data and focus on names.

485

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But third, I didn’t say pot had no benefits - I said alcohol had far more, thus trumping pot for the “which has the worst effects?” category.[/quote]

How would you know it has more if it hasn’t been tested in that way?

They just found out about the cancer fighting ability…and it takes a back seat to a disease with a 1% risk and a survey.

486

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.
[/quote]

Mood elevation, being a natural anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, and appetite stimulation don’t count as positive benefits?[/quote]

I do not smoke nor care whether it is legal or not but, the benefits that moderate alcohol consumption may give are different from marijuana.

Where as alcohol may be beneficial as a preventative measure and for overall health: A few being.

-reducing stroke/heart risks
-type 2 diabetes, bone protection
-cognitive decline
-raising HDL cholesterol levels.

The benefits you listed for marijuana seem to help a small/specific portion of people, those with diseases. Why would the average person for health or prevention need an anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, or appetite stimulant?

[/quote]

Mood elevation is for people with diseases? You are saying healthy people do not get nauseated?

The bottom line is it hasn’t been studied in those terms yet so making some list of pro’s and cons based on limited biased data is pointless.

What we do know is it decreased lung cancer strains in studies…and I don’t know about you…but fighting cancer is a pretty big “benefit”.[/quote]

First of all I left mood elevation out, even then smoking weed specifically for mood elevation is stupid go for a run if that is what you want. If it is mood elevation in regard to clinical depression then it is a bigger issue for a small population.

If it is for nausea then there are a loads of anti-emetics many natural with no side effects. Hell, you can eat ginger. Some how I do not see people saying “Oh, god I am nauseous pass me the joint”. As a healthy/normal adult how often does one get nauseous?

487

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, just for kicks, the “questionnaire” that Dr. Professor X wants to discredit in the name of “science” is as follows:

-Conducted by John Charles A. Lacson MS, Joshua D. Carroll BA, Ellenie Tuazon MPH, Esteban J. Castelao MD, PhD, Leslie Bernstein PhD, and Victoria K. Cortessis MSPH, PhD

(but according to Dr. Professor X, these are probably just old white guys with a political agenda, amirite?)

-the study was published in Cancer, the medical journal associated with the American Cancer Society

(again, the American Cancer Society must be one of them fly-by-night hack job outfits of old white guys who are just trying to keep the weed down and who don’t recognize a “questionnaire” when they see one)

Not hard to see why this thread went belly up.

[/quote]

You really haven’t even examined this study have you? and in your now to be expected delivery lay down a parade of tongue in cheek smugness as if questionsing this means you’re an out of touch fool or something. Who gives a shit if they all have PhD’s? Does that mean they can’t do faulty work or something? Tons of evidence of well pedigreed individuals doing shoody reearch and doing “pay to play” research.

The American Cancer Society has its own issues, one of them being conflicts of interests and financial ties/incentives to maintain status quo treatments. This gentleman sums up the many flaws of the ACS in organization and actual performance (agreed in theory its a great cause) http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm
Here is a tidbit from that article “1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million with about $69 million of holdings in land, buildings, and equipment (1). Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 millionâ?? 26 percent of its budgetâ?? on medical research and programs. The rest covered “operating expenses,” including about 60 percent for generous salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead.”

Just because it’s in the journal Cancer doesn’t make it somehow this lofty ideal to be held up with no scrutiny as you are insinuating. The ACS is rife with issues that you’ll most likely dismiss as more pothead conspiracy or some other shortcut for critical thinking.

That survey you keep quoting SUCKS and if you really want to talk conspiracy it’s just such an amazing coincidence that this got the press it did and released 2 months before the vote on the CA ballot for legalization. Nothing to see here just coincidence. You keep touting this study as something that should have deep meaning for insurance adjusters as well as the public at large but the correlations they drew are horrendous and should be laughed at not held up as admirable. Sure keep researching the suspected link but in the same survey you find that cocaine users had a reduction in risk. Better start recommending coke to them all. More to the point dividing a group of people into a simple “did” or “did not” pool of people and then saying those that did have a higher risk of cancer is as relevant as dividing those same people into a pool of did or did not eat from BPA lined cans in the past 10 years (even though BPA has been shown to have a direct link in real studies). That kind of simple survey format is too inconclusive to make such a broad based claim and yet they did it and got it published.

488

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

First of all I left mood elevation out, even then smoking weed specifically for mood elevation is stupid go for a run if that is what you want. If it is mood elevation in regard to clinical depression then it is a bigger issue for a small population.

If it is for nausea then there are a loads of anti-emetics many natural with no side effects. Hell, you can eat ginger. Some how I do not see people saying “Oh, god I am nauseous pass me the joint”. As a healthy/normal adult how often does one get nauseous?

[/quote]

I need you to explain to me the health negatives of marijuana that do not include smoking it.

It doesn’t matter what you think of someone using it for mood elevation over some other pill. That should be that adult’s own decision, not your own…unless you are specifically their treating doctor.

The bottom line is, YES, it does help with those things…so trying to act like that is invalid because there are pills (some made directly from it) that do similar is irrelevant unless by doing so it somehow harms innocent people unrelated. It doesn’t.

489

Ginger is absolutely nothing compared to weed. Promethazine is nothing compared to weed. Weed is a very powerful in regards to reducing or getting rid of nasea. And ginger can have side effects. Namely gas, the runs, excessive sweating, and a flushed face.

It’s a very poor comparison.

490

If those fighting for the legalization of Marijuana is based on the possible benefits, why not instead fight for the further research and sale of isolated compounds? A pill that gives the benefits with no side effects.

491

I don’t see weed as any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco so I feel that is should be legal or at least decriminalized. I don’t see any reason people should be barred from jobs or put behind bars for weed anymore than alcohol or tobacco.

But what you suggest would be better than nothing.

492

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You see, people like you would ignore the data and focus on names.[/quote]

Nope, but I’d try another straw man if I were you, too. You attacked the credibility of the study as an unscientfic “questionnaire” that doesn’t provide any useful information. My point was - what are the chances that many credentialed medical professionals engaged in a slapdash, unscientific “questionnaire” that was published by the American Cancer Society just to advance a political cause?

The answer, of course, is zero.

See, you get confused - if you want to state that the study doesn’t prove causation, that’s fine - because that is true, and no one is claiming the contrary. But the study accomplishes something of scientific value - it demonstrates an association between pot-use and testicular cancer, and that ain’t good. The findings are also consistent with other studies done that show a similar association.

But, that doesn’t fit with your agenda, and so you instead try to discredit a legitimate study by claiming its methodology was somehow unsound (“questionnaire”, etc.), and fail miserably in the process, because all you do is slay one of your precious straw men - “the study doesn’t prove a connection!”. Well, of course, no one said it did.

Also, just because I am piling on the point, the kind of study done by the group - a population-based case-control study, but what you call useless “questionnaires” - are precisely the kind used (widely) in the field of epidemiology to investigate potential links between exposures and health outcomes.

But don’t take my word for it, take the National Institute of Health’s. Here is some light reading on the “questionnaires” that you ignorantly bash:

Yeah, I think I’ll side with actual doctors who conducted the study and the National Institute of Health on the legitimacy of the referenced study over our internet pretend-doctor clown who blames “old guys” with “political agendas” for keeping weed down.

493

Oh dear god. If they do a study on whether you will get AIDs by screwing blond haired women by simply asking a large sample of men, it would be as reliable as this study.

494

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ginger is absolutely nothing compared to weed. Promethazine is nothing compared to weed. Weed is a very powerful in regards to reducing or getting rid of nasea. And ginger can have side effects. Namely gas, the runs, excessive sweating, and a flushed face.

It’s a very poor comparison. [/quote]

So, if tomorrow someone found out the boiled radishes is better than weed for nausea should weed then be off limits for nausea?

To me citing benefits is stupid. If it is strictly for the medical benefits isolate the compounds and make pills. I do not smoke, I think it is bad for you but, do not care if it is legalized. However, I would rather have people say, “We are adults and like to get high” and stop this bullshit about all the so called benefits.

I actually feel the same way about alcohol. I do not drink at all, I think it is bad for you but, do not stop those who want to from doing it. The benefits you can get from alcohol seem like justifications for drinking because you can get the same benefits from a good diet and exercise.

I have asked a few doctors and all have said that yes, there are benefits to drinking small- moderate amounts of alcohol but, they are not so great that you should begin if you do not already drink.

495

Comment
[i]Case-control studies may prove an association but they do not demonstrate causation.[/i] Consider a case-control study intended to establish an association between the use of traditional eye medicines (TEM) and corneal ulcers. TEM might cause corneal ulcers but it is also possible that the presence of a corneal ulcer leads some people to use TEM. The temporal relationship between the supposed cause and effect cannot be determined by a case-control study.

You need more than a case control study to conclusively say x causes y. It’s a start and warrants further studies but in and of itself it doesn’t mean much.

That first paragraph is from your link and they do a good job explaining case control studies in my opinion.

496

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ginger is absolutely nothing compared to weed. Promethazine is nothing compared to weed. Weed is a very powerful in regards to reducing or getting rid of nasea. And ginger can have side effects. Namely gas, the runs, excessive sweating, and a flushed face.

It’s a very poor comparison. [/quote]

So, if tomorrow someone found out the boiled radishes is better than weed for nausea should weed then be off limits for nausea?

To me citing benefits is stupid. If it is strictly for the medical benefits isolate the compounds and make pills. I do not smoke, I think it is bad for you but, do not care if it is legalized. However, I would rather have people say, “We are adults and like to get high” and stop this bullshit about all the so called benefits.

I actually feel the same way about alcohol. I do not drink at all, I think it is bad for you but, do not stop those who want to from doing it. The benefits you can get from alcohol seem like justifications for drinking because you can get the same benefits from a good diet and exercise.

I have asked a few doctors and all have said that yes, there are benefits to drinking small- moderate amounts of alcohol but, they are not so great that you should begin if you do not already drink. [/quote]

You’ll see my thoughts in a nutshell in a post I made directed towards you above on that.

497

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ginger is absolutely nothing compared to weed. Promethazine is nothing compared to weed. Weed is a very powerful in regards to reducing or getting rid of nasea. And ginger can have side effects. Namely gas, the runs, excessive sweating, and a flushed face.

It’s a very poor comparison. [/quote]

So, if tomorrow someone found out the boiled radishes is better than weed for nausea should weed then be off limits for nausea?[/quote]

WTF? Do you understand the point here is FREEDOM to do what you want as long as it isn’t some evil harm to society?

This is America. You should be able to use both if you wanted in that scenario…not have one banned because you personally don’t like it.

498

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ginger is absolutely nothing compared to weed. Promethazine is nothing compared to weed. Weed is a very powerful in regards to reducing or getting rid of nasea. And ginger can have side effects. Namely gas, the runs, excessive sweating, and a flushed face.

It’s a very poor comparison. [/quote]

So, if tomorrow someone found out the boiled radishes is better than weed for nausea should weed then be off limits for nausea?[/quote]

WTF? Do you understand the point here is FREEDOM to do what you want as long as it isn’t some evil harm to society?

This is America. You should be able to use both if you wanted in that scenario…not have one banned because you personally don’t like it.
[/quote]

Did you READ the rest of the fucking post? My point is quit bullshitting about the benefits and just say you are an adult who should be allowed to smoke weed if you please.

499

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Just to show how ridiculous thunderbolt is being, why would MEDICAL SCIENCE make a drug designed to mimic all of the effects of weed but without the high (marinol) if it provided no benefit at all?[/quote]

Who said it had no benefit at all?

This is what trained scientists - and people of moderate intelligence - would call a straw man - assigning a position that no one actually has and then attacking it.[/quote]

You know if one was reading into your posts like “moderate alcohol consumption actually is good for you. We know that moderate alcohol consumption actually provides health benefits. That is a net “LESS negative” effect than pot use.” of course implying that pot has none therefore it is already less than alcohol, you might think that’s what you were saying. All of your posts have harped on how there are too many health risks with it (of course with very slim actual documentation to back that up) and you’ve given little )if any) recognition to the studies indicating positive effects,

I still contend that abuse of alcohol is much more harmful than abuse of pot and the science does back that up. It is still too young in the research field to show all moderate use benefits as the studies on cannabis simply have not been geared towards that until very recent history and they are still very small in number.

500

Let’s not forget that it’s practically impossible to OD on marijuana and one very heavy drinking binge can cause permanent amnesia, a permanent profound reduction in intellect, and even death.