I am glad to circle jerk society stands arm in arm , if you are interested in intelligent debate let me know other wise you guys can stroke each other
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am glad to circle jerk society stands arm in arm , if you are interested in intelligent debate let me know other wise you guys can stroke each other[/quote]
Translation: I got shown to be a damn fool with one of my statements I made, so now I am going to pretend that didn’t happen and complain about the meanies in the forum.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Thunderbolt are you speaking of this post ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done [/quote]
This is where I ask you ," IS THIS THE ARTICLE YOU WERE SPEAKING OF ?"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is where I ask you ," IS THIS THE ARTICLE YOU WERE SPEAKING OF ?"[/quote]
In your statement, you said, The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done[
Whether that is the article I was speaking of or not, you made a statement - a damned idiotic one, as I quickly pointed out - and you know it. So, enough. You can’t unring the bell.
“No footnotes! It’s all a conspiracy!”
Because you fail to communicate well I am not sure you understand my point or if you are being the Dick that Puss and Zeb have proved to be
Acute intoxication is the term in ICD-I0 for intoxication of clinical significance. Complications may include trauma, inhalation of vomitus, delirium, coma, and convulsions, depending on the substance and method of administration.
A definition from the World Health Org.
You can not be intoxicated on a Nontoxic substance , Intoxication is a manged level of poisoning
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is where I ask you ," IS THIS THE ARTICLE YOU WERE SPEAKING OF ?"[/quote]
In your statement, you said, The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done[
Whether that is the article I was speaking of or not, you made a statement - a damned idiotic one, as I quickly pointed out - and you know it. So, enough. You can’t unring the bell.
“No footnotes! It’s all a conspiracy!”[/quote]
IMO it is a conspiracy, I do not know what bell I am trying to unring , I am trying to tell if you understand me or if you are being a dick . That is all
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Because you fail to communicate well I am not sure you understand my point or if you are being the Dick that Puss and Zeb have proved to be [/quote]
I understand your point just fine, dumbass - you “contended” that “no studies were ever done!” (“a conspiracy!”), and had you bothered reading your own article, you’d seen the authorities cited to. You’re a moron - that’s your point.
Oh, and I communicate just fine. Thanks anyway.
[quote]Acute intoxication is the term in ICD-I0 for intoxication of clinical significance. Complications may include trauma, inhalation of vomitus, delirium, coma, and convulsions, depending on the substance and method of administration.
A definition from the World Health Org.
You can not be intoxicated on a Nontoxic substance , Intoxication is a manged level of poisoning[/quote]
So, what you’re saying is, the World Health Organization either (1) doesn’t know what it’s talking about, or (2) deliberately misstated the truth in an effort to conspire against pot users…
…and I should take your word over an international health organization that conducted a study on the issue?
Did anyone ever teach you the first rule of holes?
Oh man Pit this one’s like quick sand the more you struggle the worse off you are.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Because you fail to communicate well I am not sure you understand my point or if you are being the Dick that Puss and Zeb have proved to be
[/quote]
Okay, that did it, you’re off my Christmas card list.
See what happens when you run your mouth?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Thunderbolt are you speaking of this post ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done [/quote]
From the piece you posted:
On March 24, 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services submitted to Congress a report reviewing the consequences of marijuana use. Marijuana and Health, 1982, ninth in a series, is primarily based on two recently conducted, comprehensive, scientific reviews by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Addiction Research Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Both independent reviews corroborate the Public Health Service’s findings of health hazards associated with marijuana use: Acute intoxication with marijuana interferes with many aspects of mental functioning and has serious, acute effects on perception and skilled performance, such as driving and other complex tasks involving judgement or fine motor skills.
There is your cited authority, Einstein. You don’t have any basis to “contend” that the studies weren’t done - especially when they tell you in the release the studies used (and presented to Congress) that formed the basis of the alert.
Good Lord.[/quote]
You are bringing up a citation from 1982 btw. There are more current studies, that I have linked that go into depth on many of the very issues brought up in this relic of a cdc study.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You are bringing up a citation from 1982 btw. There are more current studies, that I have linked that go into depth on many of the very issues brought up in this relic of a cdc study.
[/quote]
I didn’t bring it up. Sober up and learn to read.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Thunderbolt are you speaking of this post ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done [/quote]
From the piece you posted:
On March 24, 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services submitted to Congress a report reviewing the consequences of marijuana use. Marijuana and Health, 1982, ninth in a series, is primarily based on two recently conducted, comprehensive, scientific reviews by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Addiction Research Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Both independent reviews corroborate the Public Health Service’s findings of health hazards associated with marijuana use: Acute intoxication with marijuana interferes with many aspects of mental functioning and has serious, acute effects on perception and skilled performance, such as driving and other complex tasks involving judgement or fine motor skills.
There is your cited authority, Einstein. You don’t have any basis to “contend” that the studies weren’t done - especially when they tell you in the release the studies used (and presented to Congress) that formed the basis of the alert.
Good Lord.[/quote]
You are bringing up a citation from 1982 btw. There are more current studies, that I have linked that go into depth on many of the very issues brought up in this relic of a cdc study.
[/quote]
Yeah 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You are bringing up a citation from 1982 btw. There are more current studies, that I have linked that go into depth on many of the very issues brought up in this relic of a cdc study.
[/quote]
I didn’t bring it up. Sober up and learn to read.[/quote]
Ad hominem away.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You are bringing up a citation from 1982 btw. There are more current studies, that I have linked that go into depth on many of the very issues brought up in this relic of a cdc study.
[/quote]
I didn’t bring it up. Sober up and learn to read.[/quote]
Ad hominem away. [/quote]
Well, to be fair, its official ad hominem week.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Ad hominem away. [/quote]
It’s not an ad hominem, it’s a snarky insult.
Next week, argument from personal incredulity, big shout out to Zeb!
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, to be fair, its official ad hominem week.[/quote]
"An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Ad hominem:
Your claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy isn’t true because you are moronic pothead.
Not an ad hominem:
Your claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy because [cited medical authorities contradicting the claim]. Oh, and you’re a moronic pothead.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, to be fair, its official ad hominem week.[/quote]
"An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Ad hominem:
Your claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy isn’t true because you are moronic pothead.
Not an ad hominem:
Your claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy because [cited medical authorities contradicting the claim]. Oh, and you’re a moronic pothead.[/quote]
hmm, actually, both statements are pleonastic.
A pothead is always moronic, no need to add the adjective.
on the other hand, this statement :
“You claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy because you are a pothead, you moron”
would not be an ad hominem, but a bias analysis with a fair amount of certainty.
As with any argument with a moral majority…you have to argue budgets Pitt, jesus man…this is why you don’t win a single argument around here.
The war on THC will bankrupt our prison system…see how easy that was?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Ad hominem away. [/quote]
It’s not an ad hominem, it’s a snarky insult.[/quote]
Heaven forbid