Is Legalizing Weed Obama's Secret Weapon?

Here is another one from WebMD.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cance ... ain-cancer


It's time to get over Nancy Reagan and "Reefer Madness" and re-think this very beneficial plant.

fillmore wrote: Here is another one from WebMD.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cance ... ain-cancer


It's time to get over Nancy Reagan and "Reefer Madness" and re-think this very beneficial plant.

It doesn't need to be a medical solution to illness, it is just wrong to make MJ illegal. Prohibition hasn't worked and pot prohibition will fail. Just disgusted that it has taken so long and billions down the tubes.. Talk about wasted Gov. resources.
Justify the tax waste on this Twinny? please.

Republicanism Works wrote:

fillmore wrote: Would you rather be in a room full of drunks? or stoners? I rest my case. Not to mention the latest research on fighting cancer with marijuana. The real drug cartels (Big Pharma) don't want you to be able to grow a cure in your backyard.

I don't want to be in a room with pot smokers or drunks. So what does that have to do with anything? Typical stoner logic. P.S. And while you at it, show me a scientific study that proves pot cures cancer. And don't tell me that Big Pharma doesn't want to do any studies. There are 100's of research facilities in colleges country wide, and tons of taxpayer grant money supporting those research centers. If there was any evidence of your claims, at least one of those research center would have produced a paper or some research.

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Tommy Chong is not a science project (although he could be an interesting subject for some psychological study).

RW - you have been getting pretty logical and reasonable lately, but to demand scientific studies for everything?

A couple thoughts.

1. Could you go back through your posts and provide studies and data for all your claims or assertions. I think not, but in reality, I don't think you need to. There are no conclusive studies on the existence of a any gods or God or the existence of a spaghetti prophet....and there are scientific studies on the dangers of driving...but people will continue to accept god and drive.

2. Are you really in CO, do you really associate with a broad group of people? It is not hard to find someone in Colorado who is finding massive levels of pain relief or relief from cancer symptoms even here in Park. It is also not hard to find studies either way....like salt and eggs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193338.htm
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesof ... ijuana.htm

BTW, anecdotal evidence is what most people base most of their decisions on....and I know you know this...my anecdotal evidence tells me that reducing rights and restricting people that don't commit violent or forceful acts increases violence and the use of force on others. Science has also shown the same, recently in state prisons - less restrictions in prison has led to less violence in the prisons.

Let's remember that drug "crimes" are just like locking people up for being black. We have taken the anecdotal evidence that people who do illegal drugs in majority, commit violent crimes, while ignoring the actual scientific evidence that this is much more common among boozers, which people should also be able to consume as they please. Science has shown that taking the variable of race ALONE will be a better indicator of POTential future violence vs. drug use. Scientifically, you would be safer if we made being black a crime vs. smoking or growing some weed. Should we use that science? Scientifically, what has the drug war done for the reputation of the police in the US?

This is an issue of freedom, not science and an issue of feeling weird about the need to lock so many fellow humans in boxes..and you generally seem to support freedom.

1% of Americans are locked up.
5% FIVE PERCENT of people in their 20s are locked up.

A lot of this has to do with the Unscientific profiling associated with the regulations behind the drug war and then citizens willingness to support such a nonscientific system if they are scared into it or can profit (a lot like a group profiling).

Science and the basic tools of counting and math say so. Nations #1 problem - 1/20 kids will go to Jail....wonder how many it will be by the time 6 year olds hit 20 years ....perhaps 1/15, 1/10 more? Again, 20 somethings have a 1/20 chance of being kidnapped, tortured and abused...by those being paid to protect them.

But you are just stirring the POT, you know all this and I hope we can keep Freedom a bigger religion than Science...even though I generally believe in both.

popcorn eater wrote:

Republicanism Works wrote:

fillmore wrote: Would you rather be in a room full of drunks? or stoners? I rest my case. Not to mention the latest research on fighting cancer with marijuana. The real drug cartels (Big Pharma) don't want you to be able to grow a cure in your backyard.

I don't want to be in a room with pot smokers or drunks. So what does that have to do with anything? Typical stoner logic. P.S. And while you at it, show me a scientific study that proves pot cures cancer. And don't tell me that Big Pharma doesn't want to do any studies. There are 100's of research facilities in colleges country wide, and tons of taxpayer grant money supporting those research centers. If there was any evidence of your claims, at least one of those research center would have produced a paper or some research.

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Tommy Chong is not a science project (although he could be an interesting subject for some psychological study).

RW - you have been getting pretty logical and reasonable lately, but to demand scientific studies for everything?

Well thank you for your f"king review on my posting content.

I've got nothing against pot use... or the legalization. But trying to use spotty evidence of pot being a cure for cancer is the wrong way to wave a flag for legalization.

jmc wrote:

fillmore wrote: Here is another one from WebMD.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cance ... ain-cancer


It's time to get over Nancy Reagan and "Reefer Madness" and re-think this very beneficial plant.

It doesn't need to be a medical solution to illness, it is just wrong to make MJ illegal. Prohibition hasn't worked and pot prohibition will fail. Just disgusted that it has taken so long and billions down the tubes.. Talk about wasted Gov. resources.
Justify the tax waste on this Twinny? please.

****... I don't respond to you... (yea I know, I just did). And save your manipulative **** out of my ****** too!

The old rule only give orders you know will be obeyed might just apply to pot too. A recent study said more kids are smoking dope than cigarettes. One of the reasons was because it was easier to get. You need photo id to buy smokes.

Republicanism Works wrote:

jmc wrote:

fillmore wrote: Here is another one from WebMD.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cance ... ain-cancer


It's time to get over Nancy Reagan and "Reefer Madness" and re-think this very beneficial plant.

It doesn't need to be a medical solution to illness, it is just wrong to make MJ illegal. Prohibition hasn't worked and pot prohibition will fail. Just disgusted that it has taken so long and billions down the tubes.. Talk about wasted Gov. resources.
Justify the tax waste on this Twinny? please.

****... I don't respond to you... (yea I know, I just did). And save your manipulative **** out of my ****** too!

Thank you for all the compliments.Coward, weasel,pissant, f**** up garbage bin.
Don't piss me off. I might get mean. You're lucky I have house guests or I would insult you.

Glad you decided not to insult. LOL

CinnamonGirl wrote: Glad you decided not to insult. LOL