[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
[/quote]
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?[/quote]
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government. [/quote]
To YOU drug laws equal big government because that’s about all you have. But that just doesn’t make it so. You see there is more to government than its drug laws. For example, there are a myriad of government institutions that should be cut and or eliminated. I think that we could cut the size of our federal government by about half! Does that sound like I am for big government?
You equate drug laws to big government and that just doesn’t work. As there is far more to government than this. But you know that…you must know that you’re just being argumentative because you have no leg to stand on in this argument and the “big government” excuse is weak at best.
Want to try again…or no?
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
Side effects of synthetic marijuana that Romney promotes as M.M. alternative.[/quote]
No response to Romney’s many accomplishments?
Not surprised.
I like smoking pot, I wish it were legal
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government. [/quote]
To YOU drug laws equal big government because that’s about all you have. But that just doesn’t make it so. You see there is more to government than its drug laws. For example, there are a myriad of government institutions that should be cut and or eliminated. I think that we could cut the size of our federal government by about half! Does that sound like I am for big government?
You equate drug laws to big government and that just doesn’t work. As there is far more to government than this. But you know that…you must know that you’re just being argumentative because you have no leg to stand on in this argument and the “big government” excuse is weak at best.
Want to try again…or no?[/quote]
Man the drug war costs a ton of my, and your, money. Stop it. Why keep it illegal. I don’t smoke it, but damn where are the bodies? You have got to be shitting me. You bitch about Obama and his expansion, yet over look the plank in your own eye. Get real. Drug war is the exact definition of govt overreach. Why in the hell do you get to tell someone what they can or can’t do? You are either for freedom or you’re against it. You have chosen the latter FYI.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
[/quote]
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?[/quote]
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?[/quote]
So you think peer reviewed studies should make the decision for the cancer patient. Okay, I disagree. I think the cancer patient should decide.
I never made any claim about what works better. Iâ??ve never had cancer and never smoked marijuana.
However, I will claim that it is better for some cancer patients from the evaluation of the patients themselves. My proof is that many of them choose it over other treatments.
But go ahead and rationalize imposing your opinion on everyone else through use of government force.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I like smoking pot, I wish it were legal[/quote]
I respect that.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government. [/quote]
To YOU drug laws equal big government because that’s about all you have. But that just doesn’t make it so. You see there is more to government than its drug laws. For example, there are a myriad of government institutions that should be cut and or eliminated. I think that we could cut the size of our federal government by about half! Does that sound like I am for big government?
You equate drug laws to big government and that just doesn’t work. As there is far more to government than this. But you know that…you must know that you’re just being argumentative because you have no leg to stand on in this argument and the “big government” excuse is weak at best.
Want to try again…or no?[/quote]
Man the drug war costs a ton of my, and your, money. Stop it. Why keep it illegal. I don’t smoke it, but damn where are the bodies? You have got to be shitting me. You bitch about Obama and his expansion, yet over look the plank in your own eye. Get real. Drug war is the exact definition of govt overreach. Why in the hell do you get to tell someone what they can or can’t do? You are either for freedom or you’re against it. You have chosen the latter FYI.[/quote]
Tell me how much are we spending on the drug war and incarcerating those who break the law. Do you know?
Not to mention the fact that you want to outlaw a fucking plant. A PLANT. Think about that shit for one second Big Gov Zeb.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government. [/quote]
To YOU drug laws equal big government because that’s about all you have. But that just doesn’t make it so. You see there is more to government than its drug laws. For example, there are a myriad of government institutions that should be cut and or eliminated. I think that we could cut the size of our federal government by about half! Does that sound like I am for big government?
You equate drug laws to big government and that just doesn’t work. As there is far more to government than this. But you know that…you must know that you’re just being argumentative because you have no leg to stand on in this argument and the “big government” excuse is weak at best.
Want to try again…or no?[/quote]
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=news&id=189
41.3 billion a year with most of the cost being put on cash strapped state governments is nothing to sneeze at.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government. [/quote]
To YOU drug laws equal big government because that’s about all you have. But that just doesn’t make it so. You see there is more to government than its drug laws. For example, there are a myriad of government institutions that should be cut and or eliminated. I think that we could cut the size of our federal government by about half! Does that sound like I am for big government?
You equate drug laws to big government and that just doesn’t work. As there is far more to government than this. But you know that…you must know that you’re just being argumentative because you have no leg to stand on in this argument and the “big government” excuse is weak at best.
Want to try again…or no?[/quote]
Man the drug war costs a ton of my, and your, money. Stop it. Why keep it illegal. I don’t smoke it, but damn where are the bodies? You have got to be shitting me. You bitch about Obama and his expansion, yet over look the plank in your own eye. Get real. Drug war is the exact definition of govt overreach. Why in the hell do you get to tell someone what they can or can’t do? You are either for freedom or you’re against it. You have chosen the latter FYI.[/quote]
Tell me how much are we spending on the drug war and incarcerating those who break the law. Do you know? [/quote]
Not off the top, I could search it, but I know it is > $.01 and that is too fucking much. Don’t act like it’s a drop in the bucket. It is waste no matter the price. and it infringes freedom. A PLANT is illegal. Come on. Only big gov could come up with that shit. Let’s outlaw nature. You sound more like Pelosi with every post in this thread.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
Side effects of synthetic marijuana that Romney promotes as M.M. alternative.[/quote]
No response to Romney’s many accomplishments?
Not surprised.[/quote]
No logical reason as to why your fine with cancer patients not having access to a cheaper, substantially less harmful, alternative to prescription meds. not surprised.
LOL this thread again.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are better drugs for cancer patients than pot, you do know this don’t you?
[/quote]
Better ones? according to whom? You, Doctors, or people who actually have cancer? Who do you think should get to make the choice about which one works best?[/quote]
It seems that I’ve had this conversation just a little while ago. The claim was made that pot worked better than the many other cancer drugs. And when I asked the poster to produce the evidence well…he just couldn’t do it.
Maybe you can do it? Can you? I really would love to see all of the peer reviewed studies which conclusively prove that pot is better all of what we now have available. It sure would make a believer out of me.
After all I can say that pink mushrooms are good for cancer. But maybe I just like to eat pink mushrooms.
Give me the evidence or just say you want pot legalized because you like it.
Simple huh?
So you think peer reviewed studies should make the decision for the cancer patient. Okay, I disagree. I think the cancer patient should decide.[/quote]
Then you’ve never sat by the bed of a cancer paitent who was so sick that they didn’t know up from down. And hopefully you never will. But I can assure you that making drug laws based on what sick people think is pure folly. Just listen to yourself. You’ve abandon all reason.
It would help to know how many choose it, and what benefits they derive over other more examined drugs. Making any sense to you? Why do we toss research aside on such a critical topic?
My opinion? Please make sense.
We are a nation of laws. You can like them or not like it, that matters little. But it’s hardly MY opinion that will alter the drug law.
Why don’t you write your Congressman instead of ranting on a message board? But I warn you, you better bring more material to the table than what you’ve shown me. Because honestly you have nothing compelling which would cause anyone to step out on your opinion and try to change long time drug laws.
“It um…it might help people who are sick” is not going to do it!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I actually like small government with strict drug laws. [/quote]
AKA I like my form of big government. [/quote]
To YOU drug laws equal big government because that’s about all you have. But that just doesn’t make it so. You see there is more to government than its drug laws. For example, there are a myriad of government institutions that should be cut and or eliminated. I think that we could cut the size of our federal government by about half! Does that sound like I am for big government?
You equate drug laws to big government and that just doesn’t work. As there is far more to government than this. But you know that…you must know that you’re just being argumentative because you have no leg to stand on in this argument and the “big government” excuse is weak at best.
Want to try again…or no?[/quote]
Drug laws are laws that dictate what a person can and cannot do to and with their own body. They essentially make it so the government owns your body. That is about as big as government can get.
Obama is for cutting the supreme court out of the government. He must be for small government then.
In the relm of drug laws, you are for big government. Period. If you also want to cut the EPA, it doesn’t some how magically make drug laws pro big government.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
LOL this thread again.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
No doubt. Just amazing that a “small govt” advocate can come up with this bullshit. Sadly, he would fucking benefit the most from a hit or two.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Not to mention the fact that you want to outlaw a fucking plant. A PLANT. Think about that shit for one second Big Gov Zeb. [/quote]
Yeah…and a harmless plant at that…Oh wait no it’s not.
[quote]Effects on the Heart
Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.
Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users’ risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking.
Effects on the Lungs
Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including:
â?¢Daily cough and phlegm production
â?¢More frequent acute chest illnesses
â?¢Increased risk of lung infections
â?¢Obstructed airways
Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco, however the harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking.
What About Cancer?
Although one study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers, that study could not be confirmed by further analysis.
Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk.
Studies linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer have also been limited by selection bias and small sample size. For example, the participants in those studies may have been too young to have developed lung cancer yet. Even though researchers have yet to “prove” a link between smoking pot and lung cancer, regular smokers may want to consider the risk.
Other Health Effects
Research indicates that THC impairs the body’s immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
Side effects of synthetic marijuana that Romney promotes as M.M. alternative.[/quote]
No response to Romney’s many accomplishments?
Not surprised.[/quote]
Your view of “accomplishments” is possibly limited and skewed, don’t you think? You used money, formal education and position of power as a view for accomplishments. I don’t fully understand. You are a christian by name, which entails having the utmost respect and admiration for an individual with minimal formal education, almost no money, and was treated as a prisoner by his own people.
I would imagine, based on my time here that you would be a very difficult individual to deal with in real life. Have the courage to see that you don’t have the right answer to everything, then you can begin your growth. The upside is, you potential for improvement is great.
You’re a fucking loon, you want to keep a plant illegal. What’s next rocks, better hope not, what would you occupy the inside of your head with?