(Close Window)
Topic: Dr. Sanjay Gupta Changes Mind on Weed
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 11, 2013 06:10PM)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/11/sanjay-gupta-marijuana-debate/2636043/

excerpt:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The haze surrounding Sanjay Gupta's stance on medical marijuana use has cleared. The TV doctor says he just wasn't looking hard enough.

CNN's chief medical correspondent announced his change in heart Aug. 8 in an online op-ed, Why I Changed My Mind on Weed, promoting his special Weed, a documentary premiering tonight at 8 p.m. on CNN.

Gupta says he used to oppose the use of medical marijuana. But after more research, he says he has changed his mind, and has apologized for earlier statements, including his 2009 TIME magazine article Why I Would Vote No on Pot.

"I have apologized for some of the earlier reporting because I think, you know, we've been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time," Gupta told Piers Morgan on CNN. "And I did part of that misleading."
_____________________________________________________________________________________


Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 11, 2013 06:39PM)
Again?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 11, 2013 06:43PM)
Tabu subject
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 11, 2013 07:39PM)
I can't use it anymore because there's something about my brain chemistry that causes it to induce psychosis in me, so I know firsthand it's not for everyone. That said, I'm happy that my state legalized it for recreational use. I hope that the same happens on the Federal level soon. This is one where I support individual rights on it even if it's not for me.
Message: Posted by: foreva.infiniti (Aug 11, 2013 08:23PM)
This thread has already been started search 4 should weed be legal
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Aug 11, 2013 09:09PM)
I can remember when regular cigarettes wasn't bad for you. Doctors advertised them on TV.

Now they say if you smoke one, it will kill you and everybody around you.

Tom
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 11, 2013 10:00PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-11 20:39, critter wrote:
I can't use it anymore because there's something about my brain chemistry that causes it to induce psychosis in me, so I know firsthand it's not for everyone. That said, I'm happy that my state legalized it for recreational use. I hope that the same happens on the Federal level soon. This is one where I support individual rights on it even if it's not for me.
[/quote]

"This is one where I support individual rights on it even if it's not for me."

That's the moral position on ALL situations.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Aug 11, 2013 10:04PM)
Not exactly.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 11, 2013 10:29PM)
Yes exactly. It doesn't matter what you want for yourself, you have no right to force that on others.


Re: the main topic, I don't understand why this is even up for debate. I mean, I understand why the morons in office toe their lines, that will simply never change, but why there's any debate amongst people with the slightest sense of reason, it's nothing more than arrogance. .
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 12:33AM)
OH lord here we go again. The gospel according to GDW.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 12, 2013 02:27AM)
I rarely commit to absolute statements, Glenn. Let's not do this dance again.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 12, 2013 03:54AM)
You know the dance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ASlae4jii4
Message: Posted by: irossall (Aug 12, 2013 05:10AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-11 20:39, critter wrote:
I'm happy that my state legalized it for recreational use. I hope that the same happens on the Federal level soon. This is one where I support individual rights on it even if it's not for me.
[/quote]

Recreational use of Marijuana is NOT legal in the state of Washington. Legalization is still in the works and in my opinion it will not be legal for some decades to come (if it ever gets legal).

Recreational use of Marijuana in the state of Washington is DECRIMINALIZED as long as an adult 21 or over goes by the guidelines. As far as the Feds (DEA) are concerned, use of Marijuana in any state is ILLEGAL.
We just had 4 Medical Marijuana outlet's busted by the DEA under the pretence of completing a 2 year investigation of stepping outside the bounds of legal sales. Not sure if the DEA really had anything on these places but I find the timing questionable. We also had a couple of Medical Marijuana outlet's closed and told they were not following the law because they were within a school zone. If they were within a school zone, why did the state give them a licence. Also, when the news media went to the outlet's, they asked, where is the school? No school was anywhere near the outlet's.

I don't understand why Colorado, which is now operating "Private" clubs where Marijuana is sold and smoked is being left alone. Why dosn't the DEA bust them? These clubs are not for medical use but rather for recreational use. I don't understand the cherry picking the DEA is involved in.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 12, 2013 06:28AM)
If we decriminalized pot the Mexican cartels would lose their main source of revenue, and we can't have that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 06:54AM)
That arguement is just not supported by economic data. There are MANY wonderful arguements that can be made which are fairly rational. That is not one of them.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Aug 12, 2013 07:39AM)
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
Message: Posted by: foreva.infiniti (Aug 12, 2013 08:58AM)
So the moderators deleted my thread about whether or not weed should be legal but this 1 still stands hmmmmm...
Message: Posted by: foreva.infiniti (Aug 12, 2013 08:59AM)
2 times the standard!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 12, 2013 09:13AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 09:22AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 12, 2013 09:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
[/quote]

Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 12, 2013 09:32AM)
Danny
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 11:32AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
[/quote]

Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]

Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:32, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?
[/quote]

Same as he has always been. He's gonna pulling a Jenny Mcarthy and dig his heels in deeper.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 12, 2013 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 12:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
[/quote]

Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]

Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.
[/quote]

I know that there is evidence. I am not competent to evaluate the strength of the evidence nor to comment on its clinical application. I suspect you aren't either. Out of curiosity, where is the official "more dangerous" list ?
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 12, 2013 12:14PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 06:10, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-11 20:39, critter wrote:
I'm happy that my state legalized it for recreational use. I hope that the same happens on the Federal level soon. This is one where I support individual rights on it even if it's not for me.
[/quote]

Recreational use of Marijuana is NOT legal in the state of Washington. Legalization is still in the works and in my opinion it will not be legal for some decades to come (if it ever gets legal).

Recreational use of Marijuana in the state of Washington is DECRIMINALIZED as long as an adult 21 or over goes by the guidelines. As far as the Feds (DEA) are concerned, use of Marijuana in any state is ILLEGAL.
We just had 4 Medical Marijuana outlet's busted by the DEA under the pretence of completing a 2 year investigation of stepping outside the bounds of legal sales. Not sure if the DEA really had anything on these places but I find the timing questionable. We also had a couple of Medical Marijuana outlet's closed and told they were not following the law because they were within a school zone. If they were within a school zone, why did the state give them a licence. Also, when the news media went to the outlet's, they asked, where is the school? No school was anywhere near the outlet's.

I don't understand why Colorado, which is now operating "Private" clubs where Marijuana is sold and smoked is being left alone. Why dosn't the DEA bust them? These clubs are not for medical use but rather for recreational use. I don't understand the cherry picking the DEA is involved in.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

Yeah, semantics.

Enforcement probably varies by location then. Watched a guy smoke a stinky joint right next to a cop downtown over the fourth of July weekend. They were just standing there joking around. It was kind of cool to see.

That said, there was a Federal bust a few years ago of a [i]medical[/i] marijuana dispensary that came about as close as we come in this town to getting people to riot. It was in the very lovely South Perry neighborhood near the Buddhist Temple and not a remotely seedy (no pun intended) location.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 12, 2013 12:18PM)
My point, though, was that we in Washington took an important step that I hope the Fed follows so that the state rights on this
[i]will[/i] be respected by the Federal authorities.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 12, 2013 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:32, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?
[/quote]

Who are we to disagree with the president?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 12, 2013 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 13:18, critter wrote:
I hope the Fed follows so that the state rights on this
[i]will[/i] be respected by the Federal authorities.
[/quote]

Oh, man....good luck with that. Aside from Nanny State mentality, acknowledging ant state rights on a health issue opens the door for an abortion re-evaluation. Which us why liberal SCOTUS justices want no part of euthanasia, BTW.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 12, 2013 01:18PM)
I can still [i]hope.[/i]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 02:41PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 12:33, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:32, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?
[/quote]

Same as he has always been. He's gonna pulling a Jenny Mcarthy and dig his heels in deeper.
[/quote]
What are the two of you babbling about?

What side of history am I on?

Where did I take a position on POT EVER?

I have said that there are people in the world who probably spend WAY too much time high
Probably a couple on this thread judging from some posts.
I have said it won't put the cartels out of business, and it won't. Show me economic data to the contrary.

I have said you shouldn't show up to kiddie parties after being high and juggling for them. Is THAT the wrong side of history?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 12, 2013 02:44PM)
Lobo
Why do most of your posts have have some sort of dramatic presidential implications to them?

Are you studying teabonics with Robert Smith?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 02:50PM)
Is the President part of the make pot legal crowd?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 12, 2013 02:54PM)
You know I think that we should hold Lobo's feet to the fire on his latest teabonics episode.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 03:11PM)
More name calling Al?

Seriously that is all you have?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 12, 2013 03:45PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 15:44, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
Why do most of your posts have have some sort of dramatic presidential implications to them?

Are you studying teabonics with Robert Smith?
[/quote]

I just think it's funny that you have this huge man-crush on Obama, then you call out Danny for being anti-pot.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 03:53PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 13:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 12:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
[/quote]

Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]

Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.
[/quote]

I know that there is evidence. I am not competent to evaluate the strength of the evidence nor to comment on its clinical application. I suspect you aren't either. Out of curiosity, where is the official "more dangerous" list ?
[/quote]

"Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin"

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 03:54PM)
Don't look for consinstancy out of Al. Never going to happen.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 12, 2013 03:56PM)
Lobo
You are pulling this horse by the tail, I am a big fan of the United States of America. You are the one who ties the president into every one of your posts.

As far as Danny and I are concerned we have been disagreeing with each other for years, and if he started smoking pot I would probably start dipping snuff, or doing jello shots. LOL
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 04:00PM)
Since you only read what supports your opinion you probably missed this from your link.

"Drug Schedules

Drugs, substances, and certain chemicals used to make drugs are classified into five (5) distinct categories or schedules depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence. As the drug schedule changes-- Schedule II, Schedule III, etc., so does the abuse potential-- Schedule V drugs represents the least potential for abuse."

Not saying I agree or disagree. Just saying you are disingenuous as per usual.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 04:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 16:56, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
You are pulling this horse by the tail, I am a big fan of the United States of America. You are the one who ties the president into every one of your posts.

As far as Danny and I are concerned we have been disagreeing with each other for years, and if he started smoking pot I would probably start dipping snuff, or doing jello shots. LOL
[/quote]

You are an Obama fanboy.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 04:02PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 15:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 12:33, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:32, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?
[/quote]

Same as he has always been. He's gonna pulling a Jenny Mcarthy and dig his heels in deeper.
[/quote]
What are the two of you babbling about?

What side of history am I on?

Where did I take a position on POT EVER?

I have said that there are people in the world who probably spend WAY too much time high
Probably a couple on this thread judging from some posts.
I have said it won't put the cartels out of business, and it won't. Show me economic data to the contrary.

I have said you shouldn't show up to kiddie parties after being high and juggling for them. Is THAT the wrong side of history?
[/quote]

It could have been a mistyping, or could have been a post directly above, or below hours which I mixed up, but in one of the other recent threads "Should Pot be Legal," I BELIEVE I saw you post a one word post, "no."

Like I said, very likely could be my mistake.

As for the cartels, how well were the bootleggers doing after prohibition?

Obviously marijuana is not their only income, but it's a large portion. The war on drugs in the states is largely the war on marijuana.
Decriminalizing it in america would be a HUGE hit to the cartels.
Decriminalizing ALL drugs would all but wipe them out.
Treat them all like tomatoes.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2013 04:07PM)
This is from your vast economics education? Perhaps your vast law enforcement experience? No it is you spouting crap you agree with from an anarchist web page.

And it is absolutely your mistake. One of a large and growing number you make during the assumptions you constantly make.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 12, 2013 04:28PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 16:53, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 13:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 12:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
[/quote]

Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]

Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.
[/quote]

I know that there is evidence. I am not competent to evaluate the strength of the evidence nor to comment on its clinical application. I suspect you aren't either. Out of curiosity, where is the official "more dangerous" list ?
[/quote]

"Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin"

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml
[/quote]

Ah. You are referring to the US [url=http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148726.htm]Controlled Substance Act[/url]. The quoted material is not part of the act. I see that someone has slyly put in the "Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules"--which does not appear in the text of the Act, so far as I can see.

Where does your excerpted matter come from?

For the record, here is how the Act actually establishes the schedules:

[quote](1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 17:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
This is from your vast economics education? Perhaps your vast law enforcement experience? No it is you spouting crap you agree with from an anarchist web page.

And it is absolutely your mistake. One of a large and growing number you make during the assumptions you constantly make.
[/quote]

No, it comes from learning from history, and objective observation of reality, and yes, a pretty decent economic education.
Once again, you simply cannot focus on the actual discussion without mudslinging, and lying. None of this has come from any "anarchist" webpages.
Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 04:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 16:53, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 13:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 12:32, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.
[/quote]

Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.
[/quote]

If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.
[/quote]

Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]

Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.
[/quote]

I know that there is evidence. I am not competent to evaluate the strength of the evidence nor to comment on its clinical application. I suspect you aren't either. Out of curiosity, where is the official "more dangerous" list ?
[/quote]

"Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin"

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml
[/quote]

Ah. You are referring to the US [url=http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148726.htm]Controlled Substance Act[/url]. The quoted material is not part of the act. I see that someone has slyly put in the "Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules"--which does not appear in the text of the Act, so far as I can see.

Where does your excerpted matter come from?

For the record, here is how the Act actually establishes the schedules:

[quote](1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.[/quote]
[/quote]

The excerpted material came from the link I provided, the one to the united states department of "justice." More specifically, the drug enforcement agency's subsection of the site. That good enough a source for the way the federal government actually views marajuana?
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 12, 2013 05:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 17:39, gdw wrote:


The excerpted material came from the link I provided, the one to the united states department of "justice." More specifically, the drug enforcement agency's subsection of the site. That good enough a source for the way the federal government actually views marajuana?
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml
[/quote]

Sorry, I missed that. So it's a lay summary of the act, and contains words and sentiments not in the act.

I am amused both by your placing scare quotes around justice--you're not 15--and your sarcastic "that good enough..." Notice also that you are misreading the source. You wrote "In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use" which is a complete misrepresentation of the summary. What is generally true of schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs is not necessarily true of any pairwise comparison of individuals in the two groups. (e.g. Swedes are taller than Japanese; it doesn't follow that every Swede is taller than every Japanese.)

Don't forget what you and I were discussing. Russell Davidson arrogantly stated "To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument" and you appeared to support him with "If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal".

Your comment still has no bearing on the appropriate status of marijuana as a medical substance.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 12, 2013 05:04PM)
Getting marijuana to market as a "product" would involve some interesting testing, studies and clinical trials. What's the ED50 compared to the LD50 for what uses? Will malpractice insurance cover the risks? Will insurance plans pay for it? Ve$ted intere$t$ wan to know.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 12, 2013 05:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 15:54, Al Angello wrote:
You know I think that we should hold Lobo's feet to the fire on his latest teabonics episode.
[/quote]
No need for any arson! You know everyone is entitled to my opinion. But I'm not sure what you mean by the latest tea bionics episode. I agree with everybody here on some stuff - including both you and Robert Smith. Heck, I even agreed with Chance about some things. More specifically, I agree with you that pot should be legal.
Message: Posted by: Magic.J.Manuel (Aug 12, 2013 05:52PM)
If Hemp was legal we could buy the Mexican weed and turn it into BioFuel, hemp-diesel is much more doable than switch grass or algae.

If we took the billions spend on interdiction, incarceration, and lost taxes, we could fund true help for the people addicted to alcohol, prescriptions and pot.

If for one second you think that any kid can not get pot today then you are living with your head in the sand.
Pot has been widely available since I went to high school in the seventies and everyone knows the kids who can get it.
It should be regulated like alcohol.

So why keep fighting a war on drugs that was lost long before it started, and why not actually use the resource?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 06:20PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 18:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 17:39, gdw wrote:


The excerpted material came from the link I provided, the one to the united states department of "justice." More specifically, the drug enforcement agency's subsection of the site. That good enough a source for the way the federal government actually views marajuana?
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml
[/quote]

Sorry, I missed that. So it's a lay summary of the act, and contains words and sentiments not in the act.

I am amused both by your placing scare quotes around justice--you're not 15--and your sarcastic "that good enough..." Notice also that you are misreading the source. You wrote "In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use" which is a complete misrepresentation of the summary. What is generally true of schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs is not necessarily true of any pairwise comparison of individuals in the two groups. (e.g. Swedes are taller than Japanese; it doesn't follow that every Swede is taller than every Japanese.)

Don't forget what you and I were discussing. Russell Davidson arrogantly stated "To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument" and you appeared to support him with "If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal".

Your comment still has no bearing on the appropriate status of marijuana as a medical substance.
[/quote]

Good points. Though I stand by the quotes around "justice." There is nothing about that system that is geared towards justice.
Yes, a touch of hyperbole with "nothing," but there is certainly dang close to nothing.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Aug 12, 2013 06:46PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 18:52, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
If Hemp was legal we could buy the Mexican weed and turn it into BioFuel, hemp-diesel is much more doable than switch grass or algae.

If we took the billions spend on interdiction, incarceration, and lost taxes, we could fund true help for the people addicted to alcohol, prescriptions and pot.

If for one second you think that any kid can not get pot today then you are living with your head in the sand.
Pot has been widely available since I went to high school in the seventies and everyone knows the kids who can get it.
It should be regulated like alcohol.






So why keep fighting a war on drugs that was lost long before it started, and why not actually use the resource?
[/quote]




Not just pot. All drugs. If someone wants to get high on a regular basis that's their problem. It's a futile battle fighting the drug war. You have as much chance of stopping people from getting high as you do stopping them from having sex. With all drugs being available for cheaper prices you would put many of these cartels almost completely out of business. They can't compete with a widely available drug that doesn't have inflated prices because of the illegality of it. Will people get addicted, yes. That's their choice. The freedom to ruin your life is as important as the freedom to improve your lot in life.
Message: Posted by: Magic.J.Manuel (Aug 12, 2013 07:13PM)
No, only Cannabis is not the same as all drugs. It has significant industrial uses, and can be used as safely as alcohol.

Many of the scheduled drugs will develop an physiological addiction while pot is only habitual like alcohol and nicotine. I do not believe that people intentionally choose to get addicted, and the people who are prone to addiction can be helped. Ex-pot users like Pres. Obama do not have any lasting effects and can still be effective members of society. It is Holder's point that we spend way too much on nonviolent crimes, over 30% of DEA's budget. And there is no positive results.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 07:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 19:46, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 18:52, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
If Hemp was legal we could buy the Mexican weed and turn it into BioFuel, hemp-diesel is much more doable than switch grass or algae.

If we took the billions spend on interdiction, incarceration, and lost taxes, we could fund true help for the people addicted to alcohol, prescriptions and pot.

If for one second you think that any kid can not get pot today then you are living with your head in the sand.
Pot has been widely available since I went to high school in the seventies and everyone knows the kids who can get it.
It should be regulated like alcohol.






So why keep fighting a war on drugs that was lost long before it started, and why not actually use the resource?
[/quote]




Not just pot. All drugs. If someone wants to get high on a regular basis that's their problem. It's a futile battle fighting the drug war. You have as much chance of stopping people from getting high as you do stopping them from having sex. With all drugs being available for cheaper prices you would put many of these cartels almost completely out of business. They can't compete with a widely available drug that doesn't have inflated prices because of the illegality of it. Will people get addicted, yes. That's their choice. The freedom to ruin your life is as important as the freedom to improve your lot in life.
[/quote]

YES! Exactly. It's been proven in Portugal already, and with alcohol prohibition before that.
Speaking of alcohol prohibition, why did the need to make a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, but not to make marajuana and the like illegal?
Message: Posted by: imgic (Aug 12, 2013 08:19PM)
No private clubs running yet in Colorado. Legislature still finalizing details and taxation. But as of now pretty much all DAs and police chiefs have stopped arresting and prosecuting for under an ounce. Medical use has been here long time. Pretty easy to find a doctor, tell them about back pain(real or not) and get a script.

Only bad part I was too late to get a Friti-Lay franchise...
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Aug 12, 2013 09:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 20:13, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
No, only Cannabis is not the same as all drugs. It has significant industrial uses, and can be used as safely as alcohol.

Many of the scheduled drugs will develop an physiological addiction while pot is only habitual like alcohol and nicotine. I do not believe that people intentionally choose to get addicted, and the people who are prone to addiction can be helped. Ex-pot users like Pres. Obama do not have any lasting effects and can still be effective members of society. It is Holder's point that we spend way too much on nonviolent crimes, over 30% of DEA's budget. And there is no positive results.
[/quote]



The whole argument of any drugs being illegal is absurd (especially weed). You can't and shouldn't stop people from harming themselves if that is their choice. Its pathetic, mommy government deciding whats good for you or society. It's irrelevant whether a drug has a medical/industrial use or not. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't do to their own bodies. Should they regulate what food we should eat, what to drink, how much sun exposure is ok? I can't respect any person or group who doesn't respect an individuals right to decide what they can and can't do to their own body. If you don't want to do drugs don't, if you want to drink yourself into an early grave go ahead. If you want to wake and bake that's your business. The moment you have someone else making those choices for you, you are no longer a free person you are a subject.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 12, 2013 10:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 22:21, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-12 20:13, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
No, only Cannabis is not the same as all drugs. It has significant industrial uses, and can be used as safely as alcohol.

Many of the scheduled drugs will develop an physiological addiction while pot is only habitual like alcohol and nicotine. I do not believe that people intentionally choose to get addicted, and the people who are prone to addiction can be helped. Ex-pot users like Pres. Obama do not have any lasting effects and can still be effective members of society. It is Holder's point that we spend way too much on nonviolent crimes, over 30% of DEA's budget. And there is no positive results.
[/quote]



The whole argument of any drugs being illegal is absurd (especially weed). You can't and shouldn't stop people from harming themselves if that is their choice. Its pathetic, mommy government deciding whats good for you or society. It's irrelevant whether a drug has a medical/industrial use or not. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't do to their own bodies. Should they regulate what food we should eat, what to drink, how much sun exposure is ok? I can't respect any person or group who doesn't respect an individuals right to decide what they can and can't do to their own body. If you don't want to do drugs don't, if you want to drink yourself into an early grave go ahead. If you want to wake and bake that's your business. The moment you have someone else making those choices for you, you are no longer a free person you are a subject.
[/quote]

Precisely.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Aug 13, 2013 03:54AM)
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?
Message: Posted by: irossall (Aug 13, 2013 05:14AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 04:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?
[/quote]

Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL and the Government has deemed them much safer and better for us than Marijuana. Too many people have died under the influence of Marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use.
If you want to get yourself educated about the true horror's of Marijuana use I suggest you watch "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth". These two educational films were part of my drug education, both in school and in my basic training at Lackland Air Force base.
For those who may not know, Marijuana is THE gateway drug to heroin use. Just what we need, a bunch of junkies breaking into our homes and killing us in our sleep in order to pay for their addiction.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 06:15AM)
Danny
Democrats have much to be proud of, and you have nothing but contempt for our many victories. Get used to it because the balance of power has tipped for the forseeable future. Perhaps it is time for you to light up and release your anger.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 07:09AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 06:14, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 04:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?
[/quote]

Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL and the Government has deemed them much safer and better for us than Marijuana. Too many people have died under the influence of Marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use.
If you want to get yourself educated about the true horror's of Marijuana use I suggest you watch "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth". These two educational films were part of my drug education, both in school and in my basic training at Lackland Air Force base.
For those who may not know, Marijuana is THE gateway drug to heroin use. Just what we need, a bunch of junkies breaking into our homes and killing us in our sleep in order to pay for their addiction.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

*** you Poe's Law.
Actually took me till "Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use" to think "wait a second," and till Reefer Madness to know for sure.
Message: Posted by: Magic.J.Manuel (Aug 13, 2013 07:24AM)
There are some activities that are not socially acceptable to society, like suicide. Getting addicted to crack or meth is putting a burden on society and affects people beyond the one who does the drugs.

The government has not allowed the science to prove or disprove the "safety" of Cannabis, that is Dr. Gupta's point.

All the American studies have been designed to show how bad pot is, not what the actual benefits are. All the movies are propaganda media to bolster the unwarranted hype against the casual use. There is no actual evidence or scientific studies done to support the "gateway" effect. All intoxicants like nicotine and alcohol can lead to more drug use. If there was a real link then most of the people alive would be addicts.
There has been many advancements and discoveries since I went to school, so I try to keep an open mind about real peer-reviewed science. :)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2013 07:41AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 08:24, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
...
All the American studies have been designed to show how bad pot is, not what the actual benefits are. All the movies are propaganda media to bolster the unwarranted hype against the casual use. There is no actual evidence or scientific studies done to support the "gateway" effect.

[/quote]

Both these claims are untrue. Go to google scholar and type in "marijuana therapeutic" and you will say many American-published articles that investigate therapeutic benefits of cannabis or, more often, one or two of its constituent chemicals. Dr. Gupta is blowing smoke on this one.

As for "gateway effects" I used google scholar to look for articles since 2000 with the keywords "marijuana" and "gateway" (Undoubtedly there are better, more comprehensive searches, but this will do for the moment). It appears that the whole gateway hypothesis is an active area of research with a great deal of give-and-take on both sides.

Again, I am nowhere close to expert in these matters. But research into possible benefits is ongoing in the USA and elsewhere, and the gateway hypothesis is still being tested. Of these two, at least, I am certain.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 07:50AM)
"Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL and the Government has deemed them much safer and better for us than Marijuana. Too many people have died under the influence of Marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use.
If you want to get yourself educated about the true horror's of Marijuana use I suggest you watch "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth". These two educational films were part of my drug education, both in school and in my basic training at Lackland Air Force base.
For those who may not know, Marijuana is THE gateway drug to heroin use. Just what we need, a bunch of junkies breaking into our homes and killing us in our sleep in order to pay for their addiction. "

Is this a series post?

You are basing your knowledge on the movie Reefer Madness? Alchohol and cigarettes much safer than Marijuana? Too many people have DIED?

You have got to be putting me on.

Even on this board I can't believe anyone is this naive and misinformed. I have to assume that post was made in jest and not serious because if that is what you really believe, then really why bother even discussing the matter.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 08:17AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 07:15, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
Democrats have much to be proud of, and you have nothing but contempt for our many victories. Get used to it because the balance of power has tipped for the forseeable future. Perhaps it is time for you to light up and release your anger.
[/quote]

Lol, nothing has tipped, the coin has just been flipped, and it's most definitely not for the foreseeable future.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 08:27AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 08:24, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
There are some activities that are not socially acceptable to society, like suicide. Getting addicted to crack or meth is putting a burden on society and affects people beyond the one who does the drugs.
[/quote]

Plenty of things people choose to do, and even things that have nothing to do with their own choices, put a burden on others; that doesn't mean you hold a gun to that persons head and say "you can't do that to yourself."
Alcohol is actually the WORST of all drugs for this, in terms of harm to ones self combined with harm to others, and society at large:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A000O20101101?irpc=932

[quote]
On 2013-08-13 08:24, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
The government has not allowed the science to prove or disprove the "safety" of Cannabis, that is Dr. Gupta's point.

All the American studies have been designed to show how bad pot is, not what the actual benefits are. All the movies are propaganda media to bolster the unwarranted hype against the casual use. There is no actual evidence or scientific studies done to support the "gateway" effect. All intoxicants like nicotine and alcohol can lead to more drug use. If there was a real link then most of the people alive would be addicts.
There has been many advancements and discoveries since I went to school, so I try to keep an open mind about real peer-reviewed science. :)
[/quote]

Actually, even the studies the state does to try and prove the gateway effect end up showing the exact opposite.
Even WITH their heavy handed agenda, they can't make studies show the harm, risk of abuse and addiction, etc, that they persist to lie about.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Aug 13, 2013 08:32AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 06:14, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 04:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?
[/quote]

Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL and the Government has deemed them much safer and better for us than Marijuana. Too many people have died under the influence of Marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use.
If you want to get yourself educated about the true horror's of Marijuana use I suggest you watch "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth". These two educational films were part of my drug education, both in school and in my basic training at Lackland Air Force base.
For those who may not know, Marijuana is THE gateway drug to heroin use. Just what we need, a bunch of junkies breaking into our homes and killing us in our sleep in order to pay for their addiction.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

If that's your real opinion then it is you that needs educating. Nobody dies from Marijuana, nobody. Cigarettes & alcohol kill hundereds of thousands worldwide every year.

To say it leads to heroin use is also nonsense. I've never been anywhere near heroin or anything like it.

Oh and the films you watched as education are so outdated & incorrect you'd be a fool to believe anything that was in them. Reefer Madness states as a fact that if you even have a puff of weed you'll commit murder. And you think that is true?!!

If it's not your bag then that's fine but at least try to find out the truth. Quoting the things you have only make you look stupid.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 08:52AM)
If Iven's post wasn't a put on, then he is one of the most delusional people I've ever met. But I still have hope that he was just joking.

Reefer madness! hahahahaha!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2013 09:15AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 09:27, gdw wrote:

Actually, even the studies the state does to try and prove the gateway effect end up showing the exact opposite.
Even WITH their heavy handed agenda, they can't make studies show the harm, risk of abuse and addiction, etc, that they persist to lie about.
[/quote]

Get serious. What is this "the state" that is trying to prove things? Provide facts. Medical research is hardly done by "the state"--especially in the USA. Private interests fund an enormous amount of research. Publication is blind peer-reviewed. This sort of empty generalization makes you look the fool.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 09:37AM)
I've been smoking weed since I was 14. I'm almost 60 now. I quit smoking when the kids were in the house, but once they headed off to college, I started up again. In my experience weed is a harmless, relaxing drug, similar in effect to having a beer or two. The difference being: with weed, you can't over dose (unlike alcohol), you can't get physically addicted, there is no hangover and it actually helps prevent misuse of other drugs like alcohol. I drink MUCH less if I'm smoking a bowl. It has never made me interested in other drugs, and it certainly has had no negative effect on my work or business. In fact, I'm much more creative when I relax with a pipe. Some of my best ideas come to me then.

There is nothing better than sitting on the back porch with my girlfriend, sharing a pipe at the end of the day, looking at the Hudson and watching the birds feed in the feeder. It is a lovely gentle experience. And while I know there are a minority that react badly to weed, that is true with anything.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 10:27AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 09:32, Russell Davidson wrote:
Nobody dies from Marijuana, nobody.
[/quote]

Part of the reason there are [i]fewer[/i] (not to say [i]no[/i]) marijuana-related deaths (unless you don't count stoned driving, but why wouldn't you?) is precisely *because* it's illegal.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 10:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 06:14, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 04:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?
[/quote]

Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL and the Government has deemed them much safer and better for us than Marijuana. Too many people have died under the influence of Marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use.
If you want to get yourself educated about the true horror's of Marijuana use I suggest you watch "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth". These two educational films were part of my drug education, both in school and in my basic training at Lackland Air Force base.
For those who may not know, Marijuana is THE gateway drug to heroin use. Just what we need, a bunch of junkies breaking into our homes and killing us in our sleep in order to pay for their addiction.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

As you can tell from some of the responses to your post, the Internet killed irony (long ago). Made me smile, anyway.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 10:32AM)
"Part of the reason there are fewer (not to say no) marijuana-related deaths (unless you don't count stoned driving, but why wouldn't you?) is precisely *because* it's illegal."

oh good. so there are no heroin related deaths because it is illegal as well I suppose.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 10:34AM)
"As you can tell from some of the responses to your post, the Internet killed irony (long ago). "

What was the ironic part?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 10:36AM)
"unless you don't count stoned driving, but why wouldn't you?)"

I've never heard of a case of someone getting into an accident because they were stoned. It is usually because they are drunk.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 10:45AM)
As a side note: the brilliant physicist richard Feynman was a major weed smoker. He stopped drinking alcohol because he felt it would damage his intellect. He had no worry about weed though and was a big advocate of its use.

In my life, I've gotten to be friends with a number of very successful entrepreneurs (guys who made a lot more money than me) and in almost every case, they all liked to get stoned.

Carl Sagen was another scientist who was a regular weed smoker.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 11:36, Slide wrote:
"unless you don't count stoned driving, but why wouldn't you?)"

I've never heard of a case of someone getting into an accident because they were stoned. It is usually because they are drunk.
[/quote]

This makes your own experience universal right? My grandfather smoked and drank and ate wrong till he finally died at 84. Should have died much earlier if you listen to experts. Was this true for EVERYONE just because it worked out for him?

Why is it always the I want to smoke my pot so make it legal crowd who think their experience is universal?

Again I take no position on it either way. But at least use a logical arguement for us ok? It is funny I think I can tell most of the time when the "I smoke pot all the time" crowd posts LOL.

Haven't you promised to leave us like a billion times?

And for the record MANY brilliant people not only used or use pot, but have taken opium, heroin and other drugs. So what? That is seriously your arguement for pot use? LOL.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2013 11:04AM)
There are several conversations going on here.

1. The OP is about the quality of evidence for marijuana and its derivatives for MEDICAL PURPOSES. Dr. Gupta has changed his position on this.

2. Many people are arguing for legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.

3. Some are claiming that pot would be legal already were it not for a vast (American) conspiracy.

4. The new entry is the consideration of how current illegality may deter some possible bad effects of marijuana use, including driving while stoned.

Anyone care to search for relevant statistics on accidental death while under the influence of pot?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:10AM)
Well GDW will data mine and cherry pick some statistics for us in a minute. Then put up a graph that is supsect at best.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:20AM)
"Anyone care to search for relevant statistics on accidental death while under the influence of pot?"

It would have to be one where ONLY weed was found in the system and no alchohol. Be curious to see the stastics on that myself. My guess is that it doesn't rise above the statical average of a totally sober person driving.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:21AM)
How many of your millions do you want to risk?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:24AM)
"Haven't you promised to leave us like a billion times? "

No, I promised that I don't have the time to waste here as much as you seem to so I stop by when I need some down time from a project I'm working on.

If you spent a quarter of the time you spend posting here on improving your social media presence, you'd make a lot more income and be better known than you are.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:27AM)
"Why is it always the I want to smoke my pot so make it legal crowd who think their experience is universal? "

Do you think you can extrapolate the effects of one beer based on your experience?

If someone had a wildly different reaction to drinking a single beer than you do, do you think that person is mainstream and you are the odd one, or do you think that person is an anomoly.

We come to many universal conclusions about things we have had a lifetime of expeience with. are you saying that personal experience should not be taken into account? That the experiences of a lifetime are invalid? It is ridiculous and I think you probably know that. Like many people, you just love arguing to hear your own voice.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:34AM)
Yea you bring up something like the social media thing and I like to argue? Not only are you absolutely wrong about that you keep bringing it up. But if you are good with looking like a fool so am I for you.

As for your own experience being a valid yardstick for life of everyone let me just say no it is not. Obviously you know little of math if you think that one persons experience invalidates the larger numbers of the world. This is why statistics and knowing how to inturpret them are relevant.

For example you prove it above. With your nonsense snipe about social media. A social media presance is all you know. You think because it is that way for you it is therefore that way for everyone in the world of business. This could not be further from the truth yet you CLING to it as it is your experience and it is all you know. But in a broader sense your one size fits all ideas do not fit all and you can't even admit that. You plunge ahead being sarcastic and mean just to do it and bully people into thinking your way is the one right and only way.

So your experience as an individual has just as much affect on the collective numbers as each individual person with the same amount of experience. It is basic math.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:35AM)
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/DrinkingAndDriving/20061102134054.html

Since you wanted stats start here. I have NO idea the methedology, no idea if they have an agenda, no idea what they want to accomplish so I do not stand behind them. BUT if you want so badly to have stats it seems as if you can find them pretty easily.

Or you can keep attacking me. It is what you are good at.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:38AM)
You seeem to be exptrapolating a lot from my posts. :)
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:40AM)
Danny, I just think you are just a silly man who wastes his life arguing on social media sites like this one. You remind me of my ex father in law who sat around his apartment all day calling the radio talk shows.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2013 11:43AM)
I couldn't stand the suspense, so I'll offer the first bit.

A 2012 meta-analysis published in the [url=http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536]BMJ[/url] (formerly British Medical Journal) found a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle crashes when the driver is under the influence of cannabis.

[quote][b]Abstract[/b]
[b]Objective[/b] To determine whether the acute consumption of cannabis (cannabinoids) by drivers increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

[b]Design[/b] Systematic review of observational studies, with meta-analysis.

[b]Data sources[/b] We did electronic searches in 19 databases, unrestricted by year or language of publication. We also did manual searches of reference lists, conducted a search for unpublished studies, and reviewed the personal libraries of the research team.

[b]Review methods[/b] We included observational epidemiology studies of motor vehicle collisions with an appropriate control group, and selected studies that measured recent cannabis use in drivers by toxicological analysis of whole blood or self report. We excluded experimental or simulator studies. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in each selected study, with consensus, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk estimates were combined using random effects models.

[b]Results[/b] We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11).

[b]Conclusions[/b] Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:44AM)
So you are just good with making assumptions and having NO clue what you are talking about?

At least I use my name and don't pretend to be something I am not on the web.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:45AM)
But John was his personal experience factored into this?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2013 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 12:45, Dannydoyle wrote:
But John was his personal experience factored into this?
[/quote]

I'm sure he is one of the government dupes in on the conspiracy to stop the freedom, love, peace and prosperity that comes with pot use.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:55AM)
"At least I use my name and don't pretend to be something I am not on the web."

How is that working for you?

I just googled your name.

I guess you know what the top couple of search results bring up.

If you gave a crap about your business or your reputation you could have fixed those things.

But you know better.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 12:06PM)
Yep since 2007 when a troll from this very site wrote that LOL. It has absolutely KILLED my business.

But it is funny how you turn this into an attack on me, when I have taken no position on the subject LOL. You claim all I want to do is argue, yet instead of addressing anything but generalizations you extrapolate simply from your own experience you choose to attack me.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2013 12:51PM)
I'm with Danny here. We both have taken no position on the efficacy of medicinal pot or on whether recreational use should be legal. We have taken a stand on BS and are in complete agreement.

John
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 12:58PM)
"Yep since 2007 when a troll from this very site wrote that LOL. It has absolutely KILLED my business. "

It didn't have to. Which is my point. There are techniques to eliminate this stuff. you just have to want to learn about it.

The fact that it is still two of the top 3 posts since 2007 is ridiculous. A good SEO person could have gotten rid of this in days.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 01:17PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 11:34, Slide wrote:
"As you can tell from some of the responses to your post, the Internet killed irony (long ago). "

What was the ironic part?
[/quote]

I suspect the whole post other than the part about having to watch the movies in school and the military.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 13, 2013 01:18PM)
It's like telling Jay Leno how to be a successful comedian when he didn't ask for the advice. Uh oh, some bitter fool wrote a negative review about Leno on a website. If NBC knew what they were doing they could have had that removed overnight.

Jay Leno didn't ask for any advice; he doesn't need it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 12:43, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I couldn't stand the suspense, so I'll offer the first bit.

A 2012 meta-analysis published in the [url=http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536]BMJ[/url] (formerly British Medical Journal) found a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle crashes when the driver is under the influence of cannabis.

[quote][b]Abstract[/b]
[b]Objective[/b] To determine whether the acute consumption of cannabis (cannabinoids) by drivers increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

[b]Design[/b] Systematic review of observational studies, with meta-analysis.

[b]Data sources[/b] We did electronic searches in 19 databases, unrestricted by year or language of publication. We also did manual searches of reference lists, conducted a search for unpublished studies, and reviewed the personal libraries of the research team.

[b]Review methods[/b] We included observational epidemiology studies of motor vehicle collisions with an appropriate control group, and selected studies that measured recent cannabis use in drivers by toxicological analysis of whole blood or self report. We excluded experimental or simulator studies. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in each selected study, with consensus, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk estimates were combined using random effects models.

[b]Results[/b] We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11).

[b]Conclusions[/b] Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.[/quote]
[/quote]


As a former traffic school instructor, I was aware of similar studies, but honestly, isn't it hard to believe that any reasonably intelligent, unbiased, intectually honest person would think otherwise?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:22PM)
"It's like telling Jay Leno how to be a successful comedian when he didn't ask for the advice. "

I don't thinks so. First Jay Leno IS successful. Danny has said that the posts that show up first in a google search paint him in a not so positive light. And it has hurt his business according to him. There is an easy solution that could have eliminated his problem.

Do you really think the two situations are similar? :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 01:25PM)
The part about it KILLING his business was that irony thing again. Which is to say, the intended meaning was actually the opposite of the literal meaningn. If Bob Cassidy says Danny is a highly successful performer, that's good enough for me.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:42PM)
The posts are not about his act, they are about his booking service.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:50PM)
Andrew, I sent you a private message.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 01:58PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:42, Slide wrote:
The posts are not about his act, they are about his booking service.
[/quote]

I'll still betcha a dollar he was kidding about the "hurt his business according to him" part.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 02:09PM)
Could be. I only know it would hurt my business if someone googled me and the top 3 responses were my site and two sites calling me a crook. But that is me. Danny works, perhaps, in a different universe.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 02:15PM)
Yea irony is dead.

Again you show a COMPLETE ignorance of situations yet blunder on as if you are informed. Interestingly enough you don't even try to educate yourself.

You are happy. You have YOUR TRUTH and that is all that is necessary for a cocky attitude.

No problem. I will just have to bow to the wisdom of the worlds foremost authority and simply have to figure out how to be happy as a dismal failure.
Message: Posted by: Magic.J.Manuel (Aug 13, 2013 02:33PM)
I do not like meta-studies in general, they lack the proper controls on data collection. Taking ancillary data from other studies is a lazy way for academics to justify their tenure.

Of course I do agree that acute consumption of anything may contribute to auto accidents. I am not for driving intoxicated.

This does not address the issue that Dr, Gupta changed his mind, and a simple Google Scholar search is not evidence of anything. There are many studies published by industry or political groups that lack credibility.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 02:33PM)
"I will just have to bow to the wisdom of the worlds foremost authority and simply have to figure out how to be happy as a dismal failure."

yeah, no one knows more than you.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 02:34PM)
"Interestingly enough you don't even try to educate yourself. "

Now THAT is irony.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 02:49PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 15:15, Dannydoyle wrote:

I will just have to bow to the wisdom of the worlds foremost authority and simply have to figure out how to be happy as a dismal failure.
[/quote]

Quick heads-up: This is irony, too.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 03:41PM)
Don't worry Lobo and Danny you two just might catch on one day.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 03:55PM)
Al, thank you sir.

That was NOT irony or sarcasam. It was a sincere thank you.