Healing Cancer with Cannabis
The story really begins in 1969 when Rick Simpson's 22-year-old cousin was diagnosed with cancer. The doctors did an operation, and then afterwards they give him chemo. He dropped from 200 pounds down to 120 pounds. Three years later, in 1972, he came home on vacation. They were talking one day and he collapsed right in front of Simpson. He suspected it was probably the cancer back, but he was hoping it wasn't. As soon as he went in to seeing the doctors, they just said, "You've got three to six months to live."
Within three months he was dead. Simpson watched him get down to about 55 pounds. His cousin was more like a brother to him. They grew up together in the country. They knew each other intimately. It really affected him quite badly. About three years later, he was leaving work one day. He just got in the car and he turned on the radio and the local radio station in Amherst, CKDH, they were reading a report on the radio station about THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, killing cancer cells. Of course, the announcer was laughing like a fool when he was making these statements, so Simpson didn't know whether to take it seriously or not. Time went on and he never heard anything more about THC killing cancer cells or anything, so he thought it was just some type of hoax.
In 1997, Simpson had a severe head injury at work. He wound up with what they call post-concussion syndrome. He went through the medical system. He took their pills for five years. He took every chemical they threw at him. They did nothing but make him worse. In 1998, about a year after he was injured, he saw an episode of The Nature of Things with Dr. David Suzuki called Reefer Madness 2. It showed all these people on there smoking pot for their medical problems. They were being helped.
He was quite desperate, so he went out and he got some pot from friends nearby. He smoked it, and it did more for him than anything the doctors were giving him. He went back to the doctors. Every doctor he saw he asked them for prescriptions for hemp, but not one doctor would give him a prescription. Then in 1999, he was in his doctor's office. When Simpson was talking to him… of course, he was always asking for a prescription, and again he refused him. Simpson asked the doctor that day when he was in there, he said, "What you would think if I, as opposed to smoke the plant material, what would you think if I made the essential oil of the plant and ingested it?" The doctor said that that would be a much more medicinal way to use the substance, but he still wouldn't give him a prescription.
Directed by: Chris T. Harrigan
I just saw this video, and I must say I agree that mariquana does help in many ways. I have arthritis pretty bad through out my body, and I tried it for awhile and it does help.
you claim it CURES cancer, but you do not say which types! nor do you provide any evidence, medical much less; your flapping lips are not sufficient. Because I have heard stories, I started trying it, having received a sample CBD balm. I started applying to KS lesions and they seem to have dried up and they are no longer raised. Unfortunately, I started photography late, but I notice a difference.
In order not to be deformed ,be informed. With the CBD and the THC compounds in Marijuana, marijuana has already shown its healing
strength. Cannabis is very effective for the treatment of Cancer,Glaucoma, Cachexi (wasting syndrome),Pain,Nausea,Seizures,Muscle
spasms,Multiple sclerosis,etc
And with regard to FDA studies on natural cures as I just described in my previous comment, there are too many variables to analyze at one time. Also, there is zero money to finance such testing if it were at all possible.
Cure your colon cancer but get some lung cancer from the smoke? Better route would be the oil. Generally, natural cancer cures do not rely on one single "magic bullet". You need to combine with nutrition (raw vegetables and fruits, no red meat or dairy, and otherwise whole organic foods), exercise, stress minimization, and minimization of other environmental toxins like fumes, chemicals, etc. Many people have healed themselves naturally this way (without the marijuana). But for those with advanced stage in pain, the medical marij might be a good thing to include to reduce pain and stress.
possibility of healing the cancer with marijuana is a miracle.
I have been making and taking cannabis oil for the last 3 1/2 years to try to prevent the regrowth of a glioma brain tumor and it seems to be working, at least the tumor has not grown back, so hey, it might actually work to inhibit certain tumors' growth. What I would like to know is why cannabis was made illegal when it clearly has medicinal properties. At the very least it helps me to rest and sleep without resorting to dangerous opium derived medicines.
My old man smoked it all his life, grew it, gave up tobacco with it etc. It didn't do diddly squat for his hepatocellular carcinoma though, apart from manage the pain until morphine was needed.
Anecdotes aside, as an adult I get to choose if I want to drink a caffeinated beverage, or an alcoholic one, or both. I get to choose to smoke tobacco if I want, or not. I am allowed to do these things as the law stands, therefore all substance laws in my view are completely irrelevant as the reasoning behind them is not applied to all substances. If alcohol and tobacco are OK then so is gear, dope, you take your pick. It is my body and my mind, and no-one has a right to dictate to me whether or not I can impair either in any way I choose. I care not a jot for unbalanced badly reasoned and unjust laws. I am me, my body is mine, my mind is mine - not the states, not the politicians, not the police. Laws that seek to take ownership over these things will only harden my resistance to them, and moreover they are detrimental to any process of investigation regarding medicinal properties.
How about known mind-altering drugs, especially methamphetamines?
No exceptions. Making something illegal does not work, proven over and over again.
I agree, it doesn't. Prohibition is a fine example. However, how do we stop people from taking mind-altering substances and then getting behind the wheel of a car?
Of course we should, the same way we stop them drinking and driving, as best we can with laws and as much information as possible.
I'm willing to entertain anything approaching a viable solution. However, I think the first question to ask is why the increase in recreational drug use (and I don't mean alcohol and tobacco) within the last 50-75 years.
Good question. I would argue a large number of coinciding factors, including but not exclusively aggressive advertisement of legal substances like alcohol and caffeine which imply that these things (which are drugs) are not luxuries, or only for specific occasions, but for a repetitive habitual pass time. Combine that with the fact that people nowadays are more aware of the fact that laws making personal drug use illegal are hypocritical in the extreme considering the legal status of tobacco (positively the most addictive substance by all measures) and alcohol (absolutely the most harmful substance by all measures)
Also the idea that they are being treated as if they were too stupid to realise that x drug might do them some serious harm, because it is illegal the information that they need to make an informed decision is withheld and/or suppressed. Instead you get a mix of blatant exaggeration and sensationalism if not barefaced lies. In this situation, who can blame the addict for making a mistake?
Regardless, making drugs (il)legal can not solve drug problems, because drug problems are medical, not legal - until someone commits an actual crime (drink driving/robbery/etc.) But making them legal will enable people to make informed choices and get help for their problem on request without being victimised by society at large as well as by doctors/nurses/therapists who should be helping them. People with drug problems are ill, no more, no less.
I guess there are increasing numbers of 'ill' people because of the greed and callousness that is at the very root of our society, and people feel like they have no power to change anything. May as well have a nice buzz if that's all you can get, right? that combined with the fact that the tax money that should be spent on making adequate recreational facilities for young people and young adults, is not spent on that at all. Seriously, in my hometown, there is a 20 year old rusty skating ramp, with no hand rails etc. That was the last time the council did anything for the youth round here. It seems that unless you're lucky enough to have either; the academic mind to get a uni degree, the physical capability to work hard at a manual job, rich parents who make sure junior won't worry about paying college fees or for rent or food or a car etc. then society doesn't want you, and will criminalise you for taking what little pleasure is available to you.
[edit] ultimately my view is that laws cannot solve drug problems, but they can prevent these problems being solved and exacerbate them - which is exactly what happens when you make drugs illegal.
This raises a number of questions. For starters:
1. If a drunk driver causes serious injury or fatality, should the person be charged with drunk driving and the damage he inflicts or just for the damage the person inflicts.
2. If a person high on a mind-altering drunk gets behind the wheel and causes serious injury or fatality, should the person be charged with possession/use of a controlled substance and the damage he inflicts or just for the damage the person inflicts?
I fail to see how the legal/illegal status of either drug is relevant to the crime of driving whilst not fit to do so, nor the crimes of damage/injury.
So in other words, just causing the accident is enough, not the condition of the person who caused it.
Not quite, the condition of the person is implicit in the crime of driving whilst impaired. You don't have to cause an accident for it to be a crime. The point is it is not necessary to link this crime to any particular substance, I believe the wording in UK law is 'under the influence of drugs or alcohol' and the (il)legal status of any given substance is irrelevant to the due process that should follow.
Do you think that someone causing a horrendous automobile accident while under the influence should receive the same punishment as someone causing a horrendous automobile accident while not under the influence?
No, they are separate crimes. The former will be charged with both while the latter will only be charged with the accidental damage/injury as long as there is sufficient reason to believe it was in fact an avoidable accident - there must be some evidence of individual fault whereas the fault is implied in the case of intoxication.
Interestingly, there is an argument that if the ultimate cause of the accident was later judged to be your excessive speed, and you were apparently in a fit state to drive the punishment should be worse again, as you have no excuse at all. The implication with intoxication is that you knew were not in a fit state but you drove anyway, so you cannot use the intoxication as an excuse even though it would very likely have been a major factor in the cause of the accident and is not so much an excuse as a plain explanation.
We're getting a bit far afield. I don't know about you, but even if these recreational drugs were legalized, it would bother me far more to see a local heroin store opening up in my neighborhood than a liquor store--perhaps because of the type of people it would attract.
wiki: "The BBC reported that "Worldwide, the UN estimates that as of 2005, there are more than 50 million regular users of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drugs." Global users of diacetylmorphine are estimated at between 15 and 21 million people aged 15–64".
I wonder what "type of people" the commenter means, the type he doesn't like I suppose.
robertallen1,
The rate of drug use In Canada and the US has been the same for the last 50 years, despite all the efforts of prohibition. Further, the rates of utilization in countries with LESS stringent laws is about 1/2 of what it is in Canada and the US. All prohibition has done is create a huge prison industrial complex that incarcerates huge numbers of people in FOR PROFIT prisons in the US -- ever wonder why it is so tough to get rid of drugs laws -- too many people, including the police and legal system, making too much money at the expense of the average person. It is one of the most sick and perverted systems that has ever arisen -- and most people have not a clue what it going on. And, for the record, I am a non-user, but I do study the issue through a public health lens ... Portugal had the right idea -- they decriminalized all drugs ... their rates of usage stayed about the same, but they now have people getting treatment AND their rates of blood-borne disease (HIV / Hep C / Hep B) for injectable drug has dropped like a rock -- a huge cost saving. Harper's position is just the opposite because his is based on ideology and not science -- he's an i*iot ...and his policy is going to make things far, far worse.
Making them illegal only worsens the problem. With black market drugs, most buyers wish to sample the product they're buying to judge the quality and to make sure they aren't getting ripped off. So the chances are that they WILL ingest the substance first before going home, unless their dealer delivers. Contrast that with hard liquor. I've never seen anybody buying tequila and opening it and taking a big swig before deciding to buy it. I oppose drug testing via urine. I much more support impairment testing. Testing urine tries to determine a level of impairment coinciding with quantity present. Yet a stimulant like cocaine may make one more alert than they may have been and actually reduce impairment. And in the workplace, urine testing will not find impairment caused by fatigue which is much more prevalent and dangerous than drugs and alcohol. Impairment tests reveal all types of impairment and should be much preferred.
Yes impairment testing best. Some strains dont affect driving ability and obviously if you smoked every day you could drive on it as you are more tolerant. But if you had just sparked up a strong joint for the first time in a few weeks... You aint gonna want to jump in a car!
Juice is beneficial not the smoke
Smoke is for pain, oil is for healing, juicing is for over-all health
Marijuana. A gift from the heavens. Love it.
Corporate greed and racism have done a great job of suppressing this medicine for only a mere decades of its millennia of medicinal history but as always the truth comes out eventually.
I spoke to this Dr. Matt Droman who is very interested in this subject, and as someone who is more educated than (just by the statistics alone) 90-99% of everyone on here. He painted this very great picture about his curioisity in the endocannbinoid system (Which he knows very little about, as with most doctors. Especially since it is something that STILL isn't studied in most medical schools)
Since all cancer is different (I come from a "Cancer family") I have stomach cancer stage 2 (can't remember the EXACT name of my kind, but there are a few), my mom has stage 3 breast cancer, dad, a Vietnam Vet and someone who helped build the NAVY SEALS and wa basically an American who lived with the SAS for nearly 30 years-And also was exposed to A LOT of agent orange and other chemicals was very lucky to only get early stage 1 prostate cancer (considering everything he was exposed to)
Anyway. Dr. Dorman made this great post (I'll ask him to repeat it to me so I can copy/paste it) about how trying to target the cancer cells with cannbinoids can be like trying to use a keyboard while wearing oven mitts.
Obviously there's a big difference between being educated and being smart.
I have known more doctors that have written me off for dead than most people have had in a lifetime. I have known over 100 hundred specialists alone all who have poked prodded and Frankensteined my health for the sake of "Science"!!! What about faith and joy, the things that heal???
I am sick, I am tired, I have had enough crap, and I would rather be classed a criminal fully knowing I am right and have the right to self medicate. I live in exile because my home country Canada fully hates people like me and makes our lives difficult to the point of fully and anticonstitutionally abrogating all rights; not just some, all rights. I have been the federal court route, I might as well have been dealing with rabid dogs, it would have been easier, even if I won a cause over two years of begging the law for what was mine.
Try living with aggravated spinal arthritis, 4 major surgeries, neuralgia, and pain that just won't go away with any concoction.
Try with that living with necrotic pancreatitis aggravated by all the Frankenstein's pill pushing who would rather profit from your health then assist you sincerely. None of these can spell compassion, neither can the Canadian government.
For now I remain in exile fully knowing I may never again be a free Canadian. What is that worth? Everything to me. So for any scoffers who may come on here to hate and poke and doubt, I am still alive because our Lord and Father and his Son Jesus Christ gave it to us in creation from the start. Cannabis is fully conducive with the human endocrinology and nervous system. It is avarice and politics poisoned by hatred that make things the way they are. Cannabis prohibition was created in racial hatred and remains there. Conversely, cannabis is God's response to our sickness and suffering! Amen.
I am not immoral for my suffering, I am immoral if I ignore the suffering of others! God would not ignore, neither di Christ, it is for this that he crated all for our sake and for us to shepherd the sick and to maintain his creation. Hatred has nothing to do with any of that. God free those who are disenfranchised by discrimination and no longer have a free home!
Hmm, drop the 'god' bs and I agree with most of what you say. Good luck with your struggle mate, I wish you all the best man.
1. Cut the religious crap.
2. As you apparently are not an M.D., nor do you have any medical education, you have no business and no grounds for stating that cannabis is fully conducive with the human endocrinology and nervous system.
3. Where is the evidence behind your allegations against the medical industry? Your personal experiences do not qualify.
4. You are certainly well enough to be able to blog.
Personal experiences are the best qualification possible anywhere. If it's working for you when other methods have been tried and failed, then it's a no-brainer that it's the correct treatment for you. If your beliefs, religious or otherwise assist in the success of your treatment, then stick with it. IT'S WORKING and I am ever so happy for you.
Not for anything scientific.
You can't exactly have scientific proof when the government doesn't allow for studies now can you? At this stage, all we can do is practice with ourselves and learn from each other.
Some people come on this thread with no knowledge at all about cannabis and instead of asking questions to those who seem more informed, they just harass.
Why are you here?
1i
It's called intolerance of opinions other than your own. It's the dark matter that is causing the exponential growth of the internet. Blame youtube, they started it :-)
in response to a_no_n:
There is certainly no proof that cannabis can cure cancer because there have been no honest, double blind studies done in a way that would possibly ever support the concept. If you just look at the naming of the studies they are all bent towards the negative aspects of THC and cannabis until just a few years ago.
I think with the testing that is just now being taken on, we will see that cannabis (essential oil or similar) has a place in the medicine cabinet and will replace many products that are currently the norm.
I think profits are the main reason honest studies have not been done, profits first seems to be the medical industries mantra and I hope this will change one day soon. Actually, I hope I'm wrong about my assertion of profits first for the medical industry, but it certainly does look that way as the veil is pulled away.
When you find proof, please let us all know.
sorry mate but that just isn't true. the first search result I found after googling scientific cannabis and cancer studies was a study undertaken by Harvard University that showed positive results!
Under that was another link to a list of 20 studies showing positive effects.
How about asking the moderators to post these links?
I have no way of knowing which result you read but I found these adjacent. This is the same Harvard study results expressed in different headlines.
"Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth" Science Daily. ( Also within that article it was explained that some animal studies have shown that THC stimulates other cancers)
"Harvard Study Says Maijuana Cures Cancer" End-All-Disease
I think I'll take door number one.
the problem is if you look hard enough you'll find Homeopathists telling you their sugar pills cure cancer, a reflexologist telling you he can cure cancer by rubbing your foot, and a faith healer that can cure you of your cancer if you give him all your money in the name of Jesus...By claiming that cannabis cures cancer the legalization movement as a whole joins that list, we become just another group selling false dreams to vulnerable people for the sake of political gain!
Exactly! And what about leukemia?
That was supposed to be a reply to you.
......unless of course you can and do read. Marijuana is probabaly the best medicine of all time, not hard to confirm. Don't be afraid, it's just a plant (in spite of what the propagandist racists might have told you in the past). Fortunately, the truth always come out and it's here now, finally.
don't be afraid? Have you read a word that i've said?
We can thank the politics for putting a useful plant in with a group of 'loonies' to help discredit it. :(
I don't know about cancer, but I do know first hand about other medicinal uses.
and for a lot of them, cannabis works as a treatment...on it's own. Gloucoma and arthritis for example can be treated solely with cannabis.
You'll get no argument from me there.
@a_no_n I'm no stoner but I do a little weed here and there so let's be honest. We all know why people smoke weed. I know why I smoke it and I smoke for the same reason it has always been smoked. Claims of cultures, tribes, and shamans. knowing of weed's "medicinal value" are somewhat inflated to put it kindly. Weed is smoked to get high.
Admittedly weed has medical value but I would wager an apple a day would have the greater medical value both preventative and curative. All these medical claims for weed are nothing but an end run. I am all in for legal weed but I won't claim that I want it legalized for medical purposes when all I really want to do is get high. I'm fooling no one.
These medical claims which are false are also inherently dangerous. The End-All-Disease headline is an outright fabrication. But I know which headline will be treated as "science" sadly enough
While I suspect that you might be right about these alleged medical benefits, experimentation should continue.
Very well since you insist, I will continue my "experimentation".
Oh I see. Not that "experimentation".
Sure research should continue but it should be kept in mind that research facilities such as Harvard are not exactly sitting around waiting for things to do. There are other and perhaps more promising medicinal plants. The Pacific Yew tree has done more for the treatment of cancer than weed evens shows the remotest possibility of doing.
Where would you like your finite research funds directed? Finding more trees like the yew or on a weed whose primary function is to get you high?
Would an apple a day be better than weed?
and also the yew tree is excellent for making very strong buttons.
Cannabis on the other hand has thousands of use...see the many documentaries on the plant. If used to it's full potential the plant could save many trees.
Researching cannabis does not have to stop researching yew or any other natural plants (in the amazon or elsewhere) for medicinal use or other uses.
1i
I understand your perspective on the "the thousands of uses" of weed but my perspective would be to reply that chicken has thousands of uses too and we didn't need a research lab to discover sweet and sour chicken.
I believe Canada produces hemp which is weed without the "active ingredients". Canadians are clever and I'm content to let them research the practical applications of weed. Yet that has a drawback - if we have hemp for the thousands of practical apps of weed why do we need weed for practicality?
I wouldn't use the practicality argument. The best and truest argument ever put forth for the use of weed is to get high.
I've no argument that the widest use of cannabis is to get high, but that is by far not the only use. The most common reason its used, fine, the only use, no mate, that's wrong..
The uses and treatments cannabis is used for were about well before 'research labs' were, so your analogy is not really relevant.
Hemp, as you say, is missing the 'active ingredients', so for medicinal uses it is useless.
Hemp oil which is made from seeds has very good medicinal properties.
1i
I've never heard of the seed oil being used before. I'll have to have a look into it, thanks.
I was answering Qo's assertion that weed has practical (repeat practical) uses. I wasn't using any kind of analogy. Any practical (repeat practical) use of weed can be accomplished by using hemp.Therefore any argument to legalize weed for its practical (repeat practical) value is a moot argument.
It is the ban on Cannabis that has created the ban on hemp growing (in the US).
1i
I'm not concerned about legal hemp. The goal is legal weed. We have two states that outright legalized weed. No one in those two states is rushing out to get a crop of hemp in the ground.
Of course not, because large field of hemp is still illegal. Who in their right mind would want to grow a small patch?
1i
The two states have legal weed. If weed and hemp can serve exactly the same practical purposes what is the need for legal hemp? It doesn't matter if hemp is illegal if weed is legal.
I recall a trial a number of years ago here in Australia they grew a decent amount of hemp. They kept the location secret, so fools that thought it'd get them high wouldn't steal it. I didn't hear how they went, but there's no fields of hemp being grown here, so....
Which I find ironic, when driving around Tasmania there are paddocks full of opium poppies being grown, with just normal fences and a few 'keep out' signs on them.
Weird isn't it. I can grow poppies in my front yard (USA) but I can't grow hemp Guess I can be trusted with opium yet it would be too dangerous with hemp. I might ,god forbid, make a pair of sandals from hemp fiber.
I agree, the laws make little sense really. We here in Aus can grow poppies too, but it's BIG trouble if you harvest any opium. I'd be charged too if I grew hemp. It's a joke.
Practical -
1. Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something.
2. (of an idea, plan, or method) Likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.
You don't think a medicine is practical? Why?
Or you don't believe it does anything other then get someone high?
I don't participate in seeing who can piss higher up on the dictionary tree. You'll need to find someone who does.
If you have a problem understanding the context in which I am using "practical" or in fact in what context anyone is using the word the proper thing to do is ask. Simple and no pissing up the dictionary tree.
Now that's a cop-out custard. The same as your 'context' dodge. I agree though, it is hard to keep up properly with the conversation when it's chopped up like it gets, so we'll pass on that then if you wish.
I'm not 'pissing up the dictionary tree', you're the one that stressed 'practical', (you repeated it every time to emphasise what exactly? )
I asked you a perfectly reasonable question about it.
Is a medicine not practical? You said hemp can do all 'practical' applications that weed can. If a medicine is practical, and weed has some medicinal properties, then as you know, your argument is what is moot.
Nice try at deflection though mate. Keep 'dripping from a dead dog's eye' ;)
I don't wish to fight with you man, I like most of your posts. If you don't want to answer, just say so. But don't BS me mate, it won't wash.
As I say if you wish to know how the word is being used just ask. Do you wish to contest my reasoning or do you wish to contest dictionaries?
OK, what do you mean when you say 'practical', what were you trying to emphasise?
Thank you. Qo and I were dicussing comparative medical benefits of weed. Qo's next comment dropped the medical uses and switched to uses other than medical so the term practical (as opposed to medical) was used. Since all uses are practical (per your definiton) why would I be incorrect in referring to all uses of weed other than medical as practical also? Especially when the two people having the discussion are fully aware of what "practical" means in the context it was being used.
Context, not dictionaries, is the final arbitor of word meaning.
What was the chicken all about then?
That's my point. The chicken comment makes little if any sense outside its context. But within context it not only makes perfect sense it counters Qo's point. That is in my opinion it does.
Look. These replies to your comments are not meant to be confrontational. You are asking me to reply out of context. I am in no way saying that it's you doing it purposely. No, it's the nature of the medium. It's hard to follow what was being said and it what order it was being said. If comments were playing cards then someone has thrown this pack of comments in the air.
we're not talking about sweet and sour chicken though, we're talking about cancer medicine!
I agree to a judicious use of time and resources.
For me personally, no, an apple a day is not better. An apple doesn't reduce pain, nausea, mood or help combat insomnia in any way.
I don't really care what Harvard or anyone says mate, I've felt the difference. I know it's anecdotal, but it is my experience so I have to go with what I've seen and felt myself.
My comment is not about an apple nor is my comment about weed. My comment is about the use of finite research dollars. My apple/weed question is pure and simple irony.
Perhaps all the money collected in fines for marijuana offenses should be channeled into research on its medical effectiveness.
Perhaps a government-sponsored marijuana research commission consisting solely of mainstream scientists and medical professionals (not that the two terms are mutually exclusive) should be created.
Here's the problem. Anything and I mean anything that weed can do medically (claimed or proven) I can walk into any produce section and buy a plant that can do it better. Raw spinach blows the doors off weed in the cancer department and that's an understatement. I rather spend my dollars on spinach research.
Looked at in that light it should be clear that weed is a one-trick pony. We already know all we need to know about that one trick. We can dispense with the pretend game that we need to research weed for it's "medical value".
I suggested a medical committee to determine once and for all the medical effectiveness of cannabis and if it is proven to have little or none, to lay to rest any claims as to its efficacy.
P.S. Can raw spinach do anything about leukemia?
Which plant will treat my insomnia, nausea, arthralgia, myalgia, mood disorder and stop dreams all in one go?
I'm not being smart-a$$ed mate, any real input would be greatly appreciated.
I wouldn't know. I don't know what's causing your problems but if it were I having those problems I would be concerned with the cause.
I won't argue about weed's helping you with the symptoms but that is all the weed is doing. Your illnessess are not caused by lack of weed.
My advice is to find the root of the problem and treat that. That way you won't constantly be getting high.
You've jumped to a few conclusions mate.
I know exactly what is causing my health problems.
I never claimed my health issues were caused by a lack of weed. I've said it treats, it relieves symptoms, never claimed it cured anything. It doesn't cure anything for me.
And no, I am not constantly getting high. I rarely smoke these days.
I've been ill for 20 years, gone through many medications looking for what works best. Unfortunately for me, there is no known cure for Post Q-Fever Syndrome. I 'discovered' after being ill for a few years, that pot does alleviate many of my symptoms. And yes, I discovered this while smoking it for recreation.
You claimed there is no 'medicinal value', it's a 'one trick pony'.
You've also stated on here you believe that, because that's the only reason you smoke it. And thus is the only reason anyone smokes. While I agree that is the major reason it is used, the claim it is of no medicinal use is incorrect. It is not just a 'one-trick pony' as you say.
I agree that people wanting to just get high have 'hijacked' the push for medicinal weed. That doesn't automatically mean that everyone does mate, is my point. Believe it or not, even the 'high' can be of medicinal use at times. It can 'tame the raging beast' so to speak. I don't smoke much these days, the law here makes that impractical, instead I take up to 4 pills to do the same thing a smoke would.
Not all medicines are a cure hey. Some just alleviate symptoms, for example morphine.
You are making a whole lot of points in just one comment. I'll discuss all of them with you but only one at a time.
Let's clear this one up first. I have never claimed weed has no medicinal value. You just quoted my saying "admittedly weed has medical value...."
I can't have a discussion if I have to defend things I never said.
That is what I was trying to understand about your posts mate. I was trying to understand your position. I read you say everyone that smokes only wants to get high, it's a one-trick pony, it's a pretend game the "medical research" etc, then other posts like you just said, you don't claim there is no medicinal value. Trying to pin down what you mean and where you stand. At times they seem contradictory when reading the thread.
I for one disagree with it's a 'pretend game the "medical research" '. I agree many people have jumped on the band-wagon of medicinal use, when they're after a recreational drug really. If the smoke can relieve symptoms, I'd prefer it be understood better and prescribed to me in a form more controlled and metered, legal and healthier then smoking. The 'stone' is sometimes wanted and weirdly medicinal, (mental relaxation), more often for me its an inconvenient side effect.
I'm not out to attack you or pick your comments apart, just having trouble understanding your position, it seems to change.
As you said, it is very hard when you can't read the conversation in order, to gain the correct context.
So would I be correct in saying you agree there are some medicinal uses, but that the research money is better spent elsewhere?
I can understand not being able to pin down my position yet it's not a matter of me being evasive. It's the nature of the medium. My position is stated clearly but is fractured into comments. Often to understand those comments you have to know what comment I'm responding to......and ad infinitum. You can see the problem with that.
If you wish I can sum up the comments and make make my position a little clearer.
I am interested in your thoughts mate, I'd like that. I've been trying to work your position out for a couple days now :)
Edit-- I should go buy some smoke... it might help 'fix' the fragmentation, help my thoughts match ;)
OK. Remember that what follows are my opinions only. I consider them reasoned opinions. If you wish to contest my opinion then the only way to do that will be to show a fallacy in my reasoning. Agreed?
Good call, agreed. I am truly not trying to be confrontational with you mate, I'm much more blunt when I am picking a fight :)
I liked your screen name the first time I saw it, and have liked many of your posts on other threads. Hence my sincere interest in your thoughts. There are quite a few people on here I don't even bother reading anymore. You're one I have enjoyed reading.
And yellowmattercustard and anon
Suggestion: In light of the shortcomings of Disqus, why not begin your responsive posts with something like "Re your post beginning with" and then quote the first two or three words.
Good idea mate. A good example is custards and my exchange earlier, it seems I missed his meaning because I couldn't place it in proper context. They were 'a mile' apart, and seemed unrelated at first glance.
Edit- it's easy when you're here watching them come up, but come back in a couple days and it's all over the place. :(
1. I am all in for legal weed period. That obviously means anyone is allowed to use weed for any purpose even medical. Use of legal weed is a person's business and we couldn't stop them using it medically anyway.
2. Weed has medical value.
3. Any medical value claimed by weed can be duplicated and "out-performed" by other plants which are perfectly legal now.
4, If number three is true then it is also true that number two has no bearing on whether weed should be legal or not,
5. Weed should be legalized solely on its merit of getting high (hence the one-trick pony comment).
This is just a quick glance at my position. I'll qualify any comment you wish.
Ahh, that makes sense now. Cheers mate.
The only question I have is about # 3. How sure are you that three is correct? If we don't know all the uses, (I don't know them all, I've not seen anyone say they've got 'all' the medical uses quantified. Doesn't mean it's not just because I've not seen it though. My condition is relatively rare, it helps me in multiple ways that I've not found together in any other form.) I've heard for example, there could possibly be some anti-psychotic function to actually treat schizophrenia if it was identified, when in its natural form it usually exacerbates it. It does with my brother who has schiz. for one.
Edit- you're correct in that he has other medications, but from what I've seen with him it's trial and error with different patients, with what drug and also dosage. It's possible there is a better option yet to be discovered.
Let us say that number three is not entirely true. It doesn't necessarily follow that number three cannot be made to be true with research. Hence the question "where do you want your finite research dollars spent?".
I agree. For me, because there is multiple applications for myself, I'd like more spent on pot research. But like I said, my condition is relatively rare, so I also have to look at what will be more useful to more people.
Swap the military budget with the Health budget, then we'd see more progress medically and hopefully less war. I can't see that happening anytime soon though. And probably it's not all bad, we're overpopulated already.
With your #1, I've mixed feelings. I agree it is everyone's right to self determination, but I don't want more 'stoners' driving on the roads also. They've got a saliva test here now, one thing it tests for is cannabis. I could smoke a spliff tonight, be quite 'straight' tomorrow afternoon, but fail the test and cop an instant license loss and fine. For that reason, that it 'dumbs people down', I'm more leaning towards legal prescription use, but only a minor misdemeanor fine for recreational use. Minor difference, but I agree with your thoughts. Thank you mate.
Number one wouldn't necessarily mean more stoners on the road for two reasons. Anyone who wishes to be a stoner on the road can and will do it whether weed is legal or not. You can't say that more weed will bring more stoners on the road when we have all the easily available non-legal weed we can possibly smoke already.
The second reason is pure speculation. It may very well be that smoking weed is self regulating concerning driving. Weed doesn't affect reasoning as alcohol does. A stoned person can very well correctly reason that he should not be driving. Those that drive DUIWeed are most likely those who wouldn't reason that under any circumstance- weed or no weed.
You have a point, I'd be lying if I said I've not driven stoned back in the day. And probably would today if need be. It does slow my reaction time, I had to devote much more 'attention' to the road then normal. (never had an accident while I'm driving, stoned or not)
I used to work in some meat works with very, very sharp knives. Weirdly, I never once cut myself if I went to work stoned, but did many times when straight. I think it's because I always focused harder, knowing I was 'stoned' and didn't want to 'fk up'. I don't know if that is the norm or not, just my experience.
I wouldn't want my bus driver, or pilot to be high though. Double standards probably, I can accept that.
And I'd be lying if I said I haven't driven stoned. My "favorite" effect of stoned driving is that I drive much much slower - way below the speed limit. All the while I'm thinking I'm doing just fine.
lol. I used to live in the country, loved going slow down the bush tracks, checking out what's about. One thing I never did was go shooting while under the influence of anything, bad idea. Used to get into prospecting with a metal detector. I always seemd more 'attuned' and more thorough, not sure if I was or just thought I was. :) Smoked pretty heavy when I first got sick and noticed the benefits, but don't anymore because of the law and cost to buy on the black market. Cops busted my medical grow. Didn't find any pot though, unlucky timing for them ;) I've got meds that will do the job, but they're harder in a few respects. Harder on the gut, and liver, and more addictive. Don't know the long term effects of them either. I'd prefer a medical MJ to compliment them, but... I live in Aus. No go in my state and most of the country. Still have a smoke some times, not regular like I was for years.
Now all this being said there still remains an underlying problem I have with this medical weed "movement". I haven't mentioned it because I'm wondering if any one else sees this problem. That and it's gonna hit the fan if I do mention it and trouble loves company.
It's this relatively new disqus format that causes the problem.
" If the smoke can relieve symptoms, I'd prefer it be understood better and prescribed to me in a form more controlled and metered, legal and healthier then smoking." That's basically what I was getting at in my earlier posts. However, contrary to the claims of two posters who claim to know more than they actually do, the medical industry is best equipped to bring this about, not some backyard growers
I agree that medical science is best equipped to understand what is going on and why. I think a good analogy to compare it with is the opium poppy. Without medical science, we'd still only have opium. I take a controlled, metered slow release opiate. I have smoked opium... it did give pain relief, but 'messed' with my head more then the metered, controlled tablets do. I, along with my doctors, prefer the tablets. Myself, because I can control the 'addictive' element much easier for one, and it's not putting tar in my lungs, and I won't overdose.
Sorry for butting in but how about eliminating wheat from your diet?
Also avoiding processed food.
It made me feel a whole lot better.
I cheat one day a week so its bearable.
Lots of hot water with lemon juice has helped too. (3 large glasses every day).
Cheers bringmeredwine, feel free to 'butt in' anytime mate. Apart from completely eliminating wheat, (I don't eat much bread though anyway,) I have focused very hard on diet, especially the last few years. I grow a fair bit of my own food, and don't eat much processed food. It is much harder to digest.
I like lime juice a tad better then lemon, I drink that most of the time. Depends, I'm lucky to have both trees in my yard. I add some orange to it at the moment too. Usually a min. of 2 liters a day. Had half my colon removed... I guess that makes me a semi-colon ;) I have a disease, I was exposed to Coxiella burnetii, Q-Fever, can't cure it, so have to manage it as best as possible. Your advice is good advice, thanks mate.
Along with medication what has your doctors suggested to help the condition?
1i
Good diet, suitable exercise, and hope. People do get better from it sometimes, keep pushing. I discussed pot with my specialist, he couldn't prescribe it in any form legally then, but suggested if I get relief, then do what feels right for me. In effect, saying to use it if it works for me. He was an older, very wise professor.
The usual GP's don't know much about it, usually just push pills to treat symptoms is about what they've got for me.
In my experience, Dr.'s are like any profession, there's good, average and bad ones out there. The trick is being able to find and keep a good one. And always, ALWAYS double check with more then one and then do more self-research to confirm anything new that's important. I learned that the hard way. :(
I really feel for you, just did a bit of reading on your condition....deplorable to say the least. Keep hope, do not let go.
1i
Thanks mate, I'm cool. There many more people worse off then myself. I get more time to do things like SeeUat Videos then I would've otherwise. :)
I was a tad angry about the fact I should have been vaccinated against it and should never had been sick in the first place, but for $ reasons I wasn't even told, I caught it before I'd even heard of it (sorry, I said the V word.. ;)
In my opinion, it's a known risk in that job, it is the same as any other safety measure, it should be done if practical, it's legally a 'duty of care' issue here.
Greed is why I'm ill, the greed of already rich people. Ya get that. It could be worse, I could've died. I'm lucky I was born in Aus, I'm looked after relatively well.
Thank you for your kind thoughts and feelings mate.
Edit- gotta go do some things now, be back later.
Sounds to me that you're doing everything right!
I'll be looking up your Q fever.
I've never heard of it.
I suffer from benign tumours all over my internal organs.
Lost a kidney a year and a half ago, among other things.
Changed my diet and have been much better since, except for a grossly enlarged liver.
"nothing is wrong with it. its just big", said my doctor.
I'm seeing a naturopath next week!
I love wheat and eat whole grain Manna more than just about anything out there-
I am confused about all of the negative press I hear about wheat and gluten- BUT, I am also concerned-
Can you please tell me what the negative effects of wheat are? I am seriously asking this question, because if it is as bad as many seem to think, I will cut back or totally abstain..
I find conflicting and confusing views whenever I google this subject!
I've heard that the grains we eat have been very genetically modified, and no longer resemble the stuff we used to eat as kids.
I have no scientific evidence; just what I've heard from the guy who wrote "Wheat Belly". On a CBC radio doc, and from what my naturopath tells me.
Some people are "sensitive" to the new grains. A person can start feeling drowsy and bloated after eating grains, or have aching joints every day; plus cravings for the stuff, and gain weight.
I had all the above signs, and eliminated it from my diet. (not gluten!!!)
On the advice of my naturopath,I did this years ago before it became trendy and it made a huge difference.
Hope this helped.
I "cheat" once a week or I'd go crazy!
I probably eat more natural whole wheat bread than just about anyone you know, and hae all of the symptoms, but have always had arthritic joints (from Alaska)-
I sometimes eat near 1/2 loaf A ady, of HEAVY Manna grain bread- alledgedly organic non gmo etc- 7,00 loaf here in Michigan-
I need to get back to exersize and diet- Winter is coming on and I need MUCH wood so no problems soo, for I will be in shape in 6 to 8 weeks-
Thank You very much for the well worded, info. reply-
Stuart
Hey Popeye....make sure you consume olive oil as raw spinach in large quantity without the oil can actually harm you. You would be better off with raw organic kale.
1i
How do you know this?
Hmm, that goes against you saying;
"Admittedly weed has medical value but I would wager an apple a day would have the greater medical value both preventative and curative. All these medical claims for weed are nothing but an end run."
And still, for me, no, an apple a day is not better. Your blanket statement, at least in my case, is incorrect mate.
I'll repeat. The comment you are responding to is not about an apple nor is it about a weed. If you wish to know about the apple/weed comparison you'll need to ask your question directed at the comment where I said "an apple a day.........". That way we both can discuss it in the context it was made.
Now if you wish to discuss how best to use our finite research dollars we can continue on this comment. That way we can discuss that subject in context.
if anything experiments should be increased! you can never know too much about something!
I can buy that, especially if the experimentation is going somewhere.
Would that also mean you can never know too little about nothing?
cool story bro
I agree with the sentiment.
I've also just stubbed a joint out myself :)
It's not worth it to sell our souls and make false claims for the sake of legalization...we become no better than scientologists or snake oil salesmen if we do that.
I stand strongly convinced that cannabis has a wide variety of uses as a medicinal treatment, but i'm also entirely sceptical of any claims that it can cure anything.
I don't see why people are making up claims for Cannabis...they don't need to, it's a wonderful enough thing on it's own, and i'm betting that science is eventually going to prove all.
a_no_n
The Havard study you refer to was done in a lab on mice and in a Petri dish. From there it's a Grand Canyon jump to claim cannabis can CURE cancer in humans. Many things that looked very promising in the vitro and animal studies didn't pan out at all when used in humans. I will say that the preliminary studies show promising results, but whether or not they work in humans as not been determined.
i don't doubt for a second. I did say that was the first link i found disproving the claim "there has been no research". i didn't say it was a perfect study, just that studies exist.
All i'm trying to do is counter this anti-science agenda that seems to be seeping into the legalization movement...making up some big conspiracy about science is counter productive, science is our single best tool for getting cannabis legalized!
I apologize for sounding harsh. I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. I get so tired of hearing the alternative TO medicine (IMO anti-science) crowd say that studies show cannabis cures cancer. The truth is some preliminary studies show promise but nowhere near the certainty they believe.
After reading more of your posts I see you are an intelligent person, and I'm in agreement with what you are saying.
I detest those who see a conspiracy in every aspect of science. From their claims that mainstream medicine is hiding already discovered cures to claims that NASA faked the moon landing. These people are anti-science and they harm everyone. Just look at what the anti-vaxers have done. Science is our only hope for the future.
The history of the conspiracy against cannabis/ hemp is incredibly complex and
detailed, and yes science via political agenda participated in keeping it in place. It's reassuring to see that the new scientific generation is turning that around.
1i
Let's see those sources backing up your conspiracy claim.
Now, which "new scientific generation" are you talking about or do you know?
The conspiracy was on the part of the various administrations that commissioned studies into the safety of marijuana (Nixon et al). Any study that came back evidencing that weed was not as dangerous as a barrel full of rabid zombie nazis was quickly thrown in the bin and a new report was commissioned.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta would be one of the new generation I'd imagine.
It's not that hard to source this stuff. Google is your friend. Alternatively you could watch some of the weed documentaries instead of just commenting on them.
As you are the claimant, the burden of proof rests with you and oblique references don't count. You must provide the sources from which you are drawing your "information."
Nevermind so, carry on.
We all know there is a cure for all cancers.But if the companies who get the contracts to make drugs released the cures they would lose trillions of dollars,it is all about money with these drug companies.
Absolutely. And I'm sure you know all about Andrew Wakefield.
stop! i have to spit every time i hear the name of that child killer
And I have to vomit. I see we're on the same page in that respect.
nah, harshness is needed sometimes with this stuff...these threads can get pretty scattershot too so it's easy enough to cross wires :) i'm not sure if it's so much a case of the legalization movement that is going the way of woo. I suspect it's more a case of the usual anti-science crowd sneaking in and corrupting the message in order to garner more support for their main agendas.
A lot of the serious campaigners i've had the pleasure of knowing are careful to only campaign based on the evidence.
Agreed.
Why don't a lot of the people who post on this thread simply admit that they want to get high and be able to do it legally?
Aha. Now we're getting somewhere. This is what I've been saying all along. The two states which legalized weed (by popular vote mind you) did so based on one reason and one reason only. To Get High. Each state already had legalized Medical (wink wink) weed so it wasn't about weed's curative powers. Each state could import all the hemp products it could possibly use so it wasn't about weed's practical(wink wink) uses. So that leaves only one reason why weed was legalized by the people.
So let's get to the point. Let's roll another joint.
Tom Petty
I can't help but compare this to consumption of alcohol. Do most people imbibe to relax or become intoxicated? I don't claim to know. I used to drink so that I could go right to sleep--I later discovered that I don't need it--but I certainly don't pretend to use myself as an entire database.
That's one of the problems. The people only seeking a high are trying to 'slipstream' in behind the medicinal argument, clouding the issue. More research needs to be done, and people only wishing to get high need to be honest, with themselves first.
Right, like why they constantly feel the need to get high in the first place. Of course, downer freaks are something else.
In my experience it is used by consistent smokers mostly as an anti depressant, so to say people "want to use it", maybe only half the story(who wants to be depressed right).
After knowing and associating with various marijuana smokers for over 10 years, I would hypothesize that many if not most longer term users "self medicate" to treat depression more so than any other real conditions. And yes in some cases you could argue that marijuana is itself the cause, but I would argue that this case is rare.
Nothing wrong with wanting to get high...no more than wanting a little buzz from a good wine, a cold beer, a gin tonic or a nice cognac by a fire, something a lot of people do almost every day.
On the other hand MANY people juice cannabis (no high) or eat it solely for medical benefit.
Those who are involved in growing medical marijuana do it for all kinds of reasons. Yes some are totally involved in supplying patients who have prescriptions, others grow it because it is the only way to grow it legally, and most want money in return which is totally normal when you consider the cost of such an operation.
An 8 lights grow op (if well done) will provide 8- 12 pounds (most new growers do not achieve those numbers and some end up with nothing because a lot can go wrong). It takes approx. 3 months to get to harvest. If you brake down the cost such as equipment, electricity, clones, nutrients, workers, trimmers, you will find that you spend almost a third before you get it bagged and ready to go (and that's not counting the time involved).... And the grower takes the risk for those who just want a small amount which won't land them in jail.
Most smokers are honest with themselves, they like to smoke.
1i
G'day mate, yeah, I grew my own for a long time, I concur. What I meant about getting honest, is that if its only wanted for a buzz, (I was a recreational smoker, still am some times), it doesn't help the medical argument and isn't honest to claim it's for medicinal reasons when it's not.
People who don't like it, 'smell a rat', correctly so, and it hurts the real patients argument.
Argue from a position of honesty. Argue the facts, it's the only way to combat the BS surrounding the plant properly, in my opinion. :)
I know hundreds of smokers or consumers, those who claim it's for medicinal use, it is because it is (in their opinion such as yours). As for the rest they are quite happy to say that they like smoking. Perhaps where I live, in the heart of production, no one can (or wish) to fool no one. Keep in mind that medicinal use is a broad definition when it comes to pot (arthritis, lack of sleep, appetite, nausea, HIV, or just the fact that someone is dying according to his/her doctor etc...)
1i
The laws here don't distinguish between the two :( Probably made us here more prone to 'shh' about it. I know some that use it for medicine, most I've met don't. A few that at first say it's medicinal, but then later on when you get to know them better, they'll admit it's just because the wanna get high.
I could, even with my current health issues, make a decent income growing and selling it, but I don't, because of the law. Don't even grow for myself anymore. :(
I just think we usually get further towards our goals when coming from a position of honesty, firstly with ourselves. Most people are fairly good at spotting BS after awhile, it's not a good way to try to do things.
I have no problem with someone wanting to get high... it's fun, why wouldn't someone want to from time to time. The politics surrounding the plant have already confused the argument. It needs research, the real facts considered so an informed decision can be made. That hasn't been happening here in Aus, by a long way. :(
This doc is simply awesome. Too bad about these ridiculous freedom crushing laws. I wish Mr. Simpson the best.
I think it needs to be stressed that there is no evidence whatsoever suggesting cannabis can "Cure" Cancer...By the simple fact that cancer is a mutation, every single one is a little bit different, so a cure is technically impossible...what is possible however is better treatment, for which Cannabis is a valuable and possibly vital tool.
What cannabis does very well, is treat the side effects of conventional chemotherapy, the nausea, the headaches, the loss of appetite, making the treatment less stressful the list of benefits from such a thing are countless!
It is the Cannabanoids that do this, the THC actually has very little involvement in the medicinal values of cannabis.
Cannabis only works as a cancer treatment when used alongside
Chemotherapy. This fact is what is widely understood to be the case in the scientific community.
Don't blame doctors and scientists for Political issues...Scientists and doctors are the one's finding all of this stuff out!
It has been shown that one of the only cells cannabinoids destroys are mutated cells.. Mutated cells are what lead to cancer and continued cancer growth. The Amsterdam ministry of cannabis has the papers from a 4 year study on the effects on cannabinoids on the human body. This study took place in cannada i think.mDid u know cannabinoids exist in all living creature above molluscs and clams and play vital roles in maintaining health and other vital roles.
It has been shown that one of the only cells cannabinoids destroys are mutated cells..
How?
Cannabinoids only effect those cells in the brain...The brain is where the receptors for it are.
tbh the amsterdam ministry of cannabis doesn't really sound like the most scientifically viable source...do they not have a financial incentive?
Kudos for the word on Granny Storm Crow.
Also, the smoke from Cannabis is negated by all the anti-cancer chemicals that are in the plant.
If people took the time to really study this plant, they would be amazed at all the medicinal uses it contains.
Inhaling any smoke into your lungs is not a way to get healthy. Using Marinol would be better. In my case, I used a 3HP blender smoothie protocol that used pineapple stem & core as ingredients in one and red beet in another. Out of 42 tumors, 34 died and 8 are dying. No smoke. No chemo. No stupid excuse to get high while pretending I want to get better.
why are you judging with a statement like, "no stupid excuse to get high while pretending i want to get better" if you read byron katie you would understand that is a projection on to another person.
i'm sceptical of anyone who claims their "special juice" kills all cancer...
Good luck with your battle mate. I know the topic of the doco is cancer, but that's not the only medicinal use for cannabis. Not everyone looking for symptom relief is just after another stone.
Scientifically oriented Cancer Specialist Medical Doctors should peruse the so-called Granny Storm Crow's List. This is the definitive list of many thousands of Scientific Papers, News Reports, Personal Accounts, and Anecdotes about the use of Cannabis Resins as a medicine.
Now: Good Scientific Doctors please do two things:-
A) Inform yourselves;
B) Learn your Manners.
Note also that the people who have taken the time and effort to write these accounts are not ALL lying.
Now I'd just like to suggest that you should retrain in some other branch of medicine because the obscenely lucrative 'fixing cancer' trade will be a thing of the past pretty soon.
In Britain, the board of scientists advising the government on drug policy basicly said that prohibition was a waste of time, and that horse riding is statistically more dangerous than taking ecstacy...That board of scientific advisors were fired and their reccomendations ignored.
My point is that science is already well aware and very vocal about the realities of drugs...It's the politicians that refuse to see reason or discuss it.
Here's the thing: Look up the meaning of discreet then go plant your seeds and trust no one.
since when is pornography making love.Their either making love or killing each other,it seems to go with the territory.or perhaps your watching but not seeing.And I suppose Bombies was a love story to.
Well today I go visit a friend's house who has a medical gro-op and guess what? people were trimming and watching this very doc. One of the lady produces oil for cancer patients and other conditions, she went to meet Simpson a couple years ago and saw him in Nelson (at a church) on August 30th. By the way he will be in Terrace sept 6th and 7th.
1i
if you are on facebook check his page for info.
We live in a very strange world where we put people in jail for smoking or ingesting a plant that may turn out to be good for us. We do this because of politics. We also encourage people to watch movies of people killing each other and put people in jail for making or watching movies of other people making love. If I was an alien landing on this planet for the first time I would think earthlings were a very strange lot indeed.
Well said mister!
1i
I've always said that marijuana is just a political football that can be used by politicians to show how "anti-drug" they are. Ridiculous! Any negative effects from it are much, much less than those from alcohol. And now that it has been found to be of help for sickness and disease all this nonsense makes even less sense.
times are changing :)
Tell me about it!! At least it appears that people are beginning to wake up and realize we have been lied to by our leaders about cannabis. And well, pretty much everything....
Man, looks like Canada is slowly turning into a USA of the north! This sounds like a US story. Granted things are changing some what, but we still have state laws vs country laws at play here. I really don't care what people believe will cure them. They could believe that watching strippers hanging from poles cure them, I'd support them! They should be able to follow whatever they wish as long as no one else is harmed by the practices. I'm sure we can resolve any conflict for people that would benefit from any actions done in the name of this benefit. Too bad there's currently a whole conglomerate of large corporations $benefiting$ from current practices.
Amen to that ,
I been studying the last 100 years of US and Canada history and we are pretty rapidly turning into a "police state" where freedom is getting smaller and smaller every year and as citizen we are not gaining anything from this ,
wish I had better words like you , everyone in Canada would need to stand up all together and say "no more of this system" but its hard getting people out of there little daily comfort .
I hope in the near future our Health Care will change and accept new ways of healing people and freedom of choice for remedy
the problem is that giving people an uninformed choice isn't really helping them.
whatstheharm. net has a lot of good examples of people hurt by bad medicine.
Whatstheharm is an excellent site. But I would like to clarify that the people harmed were harmed not by "bad medicine" but by various forms of alternative TO medicine ie: snake oil/quackery.
And speaking of harm done to patients by "alternative" medicine, what about Burzynski, Hoxsey and Gerson?
Quackwatch is also an excellent site.
:"Alternative" medicine is an insult to those true and dedicated mainstream medical researchers and practitioners who have devoted their professional lives to the field of medicine.
Ah! Count Burzynski the brave maverick doctor harrassed and tortured by the FDA and the Texas Med. Board. Thirty some years and not one single shred of evidence that his antineoplastons work. Not one single completed clinical trial that he charges patients hundreds of thousands of dollars to be a part of. The man is beyond despicable.
Hoxsey and Gerson pure snake oil.
The alties HATE Quackwatch. Many times I've asked them to give me an example of one thing that is incorrect on the site. No one has ever been able to do it.
And what did Hoxsey die of after attempting to treat himself?
Anyway, welcome to SeeUat Videos. It's refreshing to find a newcomer as informed on the subject as you.
Hoxsey reminds me of another infamous cancer quack, Hulda Clark. She said all types of cancer were caused by liver flukes and that she could cure any cancer in just a few days. Her brother who worked with her died of cancer and a few years later she herself died from lymphoma/cancer.
Another complete fraud and con artist.
Perhaps you should check out "The Cancel Sell," also on SeeUat Videos. Wait tell you read some of the comments on that thread.
You two are straight out of an episode of Cheers as Frasier and Lillith...
It's better than being something out of the 1st book of the Divine Comedy.
I'll agree with that. bad medicine was a poor paraphrase.
This documentary hardly touches on the subject of proving the medicinal value of cannabinoids. It's a story about one guy, his anecdotal claims, his personal tragedy and how he got shafted by the system for not shutting his mouth.
There was a time when doctors prescribed smoking cigarettes for certain lung problems. In medieval Europe they prescribed inhaling the smoke of Mercury to treat syphilis and other ailments. They really can be a fickle bunch, those guys. It doesn't help that Doctors, as a rule, are a conservative lot. They're indispensable to our society but they can so often be stuck in the mud of their curricular ideologies.
And doctors used to believe that humors caused disease for which blood letting was the cure. It has nothing to do with fickleness and circular ideologies and everything to do with the influx of new information.
I'd also add the acknowledgement of thousands of years of accepted medical knowledge. It's been recognised for a long time as a medicinal plant. As you say, it needs the influx of new information, which has been stymied by the politics surrounding the drug. But it's long and widespread history as a medicinal herb, added to the newer, 'accepted' version of a spray to treat MS that's produced in the UK, and was approved here in Aus a couple of years ago. (its a spray using 2 chemicals extracted from cannabis) by it being accepted as a medicine, by default infers that it has medicinal properties.
More studies need to be done, on the many chemicals the plant has, and multiple treatments it could offer. On a par with the poppy plant I'd suggest. That's a much more addictive and harmful natural drug, but it has multiple medicinal uses that are very useful, morphine being one.
Then perhaps after further (much further) testing, the solution is to keep the ban on cannabis in place, but allow the extract to be prescribed.
Yeah...let the corporations get their hands on it for profit in pill/spray form, and let the construction industry use the waste hemp to make hemp concrete for a 'greener' build process with improved insulation qualities, but keep it out of reach of the people by law and keep overflowing the prisons with the 'irresponsible self-medicators', turning them in to proper criminals ...Genius Robert... What you 'think' or 'believe' to be a solution is only so much garbage, it's what you can prove will work that counts. Back to the gene pool with you and your solutions. (Down the corridor, first door on the right).
So what if the corporations make a profit? One way or the other, have you got a better idea or is it back to the gene pool with ignorant, pathetic little you?
I do :-) ...but then what good are 'ideas' in your paradigm? They are just philosophical, conjecturing concepts of whimsical nonsense...no? Based on your poor skills in the social sciences, I suggest you stick to the natural ones and your probing philosophical approach to them (i.e. the commendable questioning of others' perspectives).
1. You still haven't managed to come up with anything fatal to my idea.
2. You have not come up with a better idea, obviously because you lack the intellectual ability to do so.
This makes mincemeat of both of your rants.
Mincemeat? :-) Is that a new one?...I think it could be. Your idea is fatal because it compounds the problems through stricter legislation (the monitoring of who is allowed to produce and process)...that will cost taxpayers money...millions in fact, that could be better used elsewhere. No.
A better idea would be to follow the established successes of Holland through Cafés and Coffee Shops. Allow these places to act as dispensaries for medicinal purposes (no need to get the pharmaceutical giants involved). In addition leave individuals to grow small crops of their own. The prisons can then be reduced significantly and steadily, all around the world - indirectly lowering crime rates through the reduction of hardened criminals who 1) have been indoctrinated into that system, and 2) can not find employment due to their incarceration.
People's rights to freedom can be promoted by the lenient, forward thinking governments. It would be a victory for all, except the drug dealers who currently seem to be the only victors.
...mincemeat...lol...funny guy.
From Docoman's post, "But it's [SIC] long and widespread history as a medicinal herb, added to the newer, 'accepted' version of a spray to treat MS that's produced in the UK, and was approved here in Aus a couple of years ago. (its a spray using 2 chemicals extracted from cannabis) by it being accepted as a medicine, by default infers that it has medicinal properties." If proven efficacious after more successful testing, possession of this compound should be legalized, but restricted to prescription. Pharmaceutical companies, not individuals, are best equipped to produce it and easier to regulate than individual growers. If they make a profit, that's what they're in business for. As a matter of fact, how would individual growers be able to obtain the seed except through dealers.
P.S. I do not believe in prison for users of marijuana, now dealers are another matter.
G'day Robert,
You would eliminate the dealers if the laws permitted you to grow your own and for those who can't legalized seller who pay tax so the government gets there cut.
First of all, you were discussing a compound made from the plant, the actual plant.
Second, I understand your point, but only half-agree with it. A few years back I was reading the autobiography of Charlie Barnet, a bandleader of the '40's, who mentioned that the marijuana he and his band members used to smoke was nothing as powerful as what is smoked now (read in the '80's). This caused me to rethink my earlier stance which used to be similar to yours. However, I agree that the policies in this country are clearly not working. .
Charlie is quite correct, it should be understood that there are various strains and growing methods that have been produced over the years through practice and breeding. Some are not all the same as the stuff available in the forties. However, that does not mean those 40's varieties are no longer available. That is a common misunderstanding. It all comes down to chemical levels within the matured plant. THC in the 40's plant would have been around 6%, I'd guess. You can still get these same plants. Breeding and methods have produced plants with THC up to 32%, making it a vastly different thing. The interesting thing is that these advanced methods were only developed in the 90's (after the 80's). I don't think anyone is pushing for the legalisation of these hybrid plants. It's a bit like comparing spirits to beer...one has to respect the difference. Finally to put it in to context, even with the 32% stuff, you have just a little of it, get really stoned, and an hour or 2 later...back to normal. It's not as scary as someone who's drunk the best part of a bottle of whisky, by any means!
If that were all that was available, I would have no problem with its legalization, but to use your comparison to alcohol, I would have a problem if liquor stores started selling 200 proof anything; I don't even like the idea of 151 rum; it's like purchasing an assault weapon--why?
Sorry to just spring this on you but you can get 200 proof in your friendly neighborhood liquor store. PGA is 200 proof.
Not here in California.
You're correct. It's not sold in California.
Except for use in a chem lab, why would anyone wish to purchase PGA in the first place?
TO make tincture:
The recommended minimum cannabis to alcohol ratio is one gram of bud to one ounce of fluid (alcohol). Some people use 7-10 grams good bud shake to one (1) ounce of liquid (alcohol).
1i
Or an ounce of PGA for every three bong hits.
Mostly to spike a very large fruit punch. In college we made the punch in 32 gal. garbage cans.
Just to be clear PGA can have lesser proofs than 200 and we probably used 180 proof.
You can buy 200 proof at the liquor store. PGA is 200 proof
Yeah, but it's not like that, even the new strains. 32% MJ is not comparable to even 151 proof, more like spirits are to beer. No one could smoke a lethal dose from a plant, you have to chemically refine it to make it much more potent to become lethal.
I'm not so much concerned about lethal as about the degree of high. One way or the other, the laws should be relaxed to allow for more experimentation and research.
I live in a state where medical weed is legal. Trust me the growers have the R&D down to an art.
Those high THC plants are legal in my state. As far as the state is concerned it doesn't regulate THC content at all.
When talking about the strength, it's no doubt the newer strains are more potent, (stronger) these days. If you look at the medicinal to lethal dosage ratio though, it's something like 1:20,000. It is physically impossible to overdose it if smoking it. It's, as far as drugs go, a pretty safe one, even with the newer strains.
I wouldn't wish to take a chance on something which knocks me on ____________.
I can understand your stance. My experience tells me this is one case the politics have restricted the science to a point it's not kept up with the reality. The legal stances are absurd, some places it's legal, some places you can get the death penalty. Many if not most doctors acknowledge there are medicinal properties, but smoking isn't a healthy way to take any drug, and as you've pointed out it is hard to meter the dosage. That isn't how doctors like to do things.
But as a patient, I can tell you you'll do anything to feel better after awhile. I've compared myself on the prescription drugs to MJ, both have their pros and cons. The prescription drugs are more addictive, have harder side effects, and are more of a long term 'unknown' then MJ. MJ is illegal.
It might soften you up.
1i
I would take that chance and often have.
That would be an unmitigated disaster!
Seeds are already available around the world legally (they can be bought and owned legally in most countries, as they are not a drug in that form). You can not make a seed illegal since it is not a drug in itself. You can, however, make germinating seeds illegal.
Getting hold of seeds, therefore, is not a problem. Also, the plants can be cloned very easily (it's a weed after all).
Marijuana is defined in California as plants, SEEDS, resins, oils, stems and stalks and are illegal under Health and Safety Code Section 11018. SO MARIJUANA SEEDS ARE ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA AT LEAST. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
Really? Didn't know that. Must be an american thing. I can buy seeds in my local high street (UK)
Yeah, that's a UK loop-hole I think, can't have the seeds here in Aus I believe. :(
I stand corrected.
I see nothing wrong or harmful in making a necklace or some sort of decoration out of them, just as you can do with poppy seeds.
Yeah, it's weird here, you can buy viable poppy seeds from the grocery store, but not have MJ seeds. Here you can grow poppies (even the types with opium alkaloids), but they crack down hard on anyone 'harvesting' opium. I read awhile back about a bloke that got a couple years jail first offense, for growing and harvesting it for pain relief for his back. You'd not get that for the same amount of MJ. They also are harder on home tobacco growing here. You can brew your own liquor, but not sell it.
Opium poppies can be grown legally in the US but the same rule applies. No harvesting.
What about hemp seeds? Here you can buy it by the bucket.
1i
I'm not completely sure mate, but I believe we're not allowed any cannabis seeds at all here in Queensland. The laws change from State to State, the more relaxed places let you grow a couple outdoors and will only pull them up and give you a small fine.
Here in Qld, unfortunately, they're pretty hard. I've been charged, taken to court and fined for possessing 2 used smoking implements (a bong and a pipe). They confiscated my growing gear as well even though they didn't find any MJ, or seeds etc. (otherwise I'd have been up for more charges like cultivation & possession) Lucky for me, I'd been away for a couple months, I was in hospital having operations when they raided my home. Otherwise I'd have had a small grow going at the time.
They raided me because I'd brought some seeds online, from a UK based site. The seeds got through customs, but the transaction was tracked by the police, I was put on a list to check out, which they did a couple years later when on a 'drug blitz'.
I miss the 'hobby' side of growing it as much as the smoking at the end, I'd been working on my own medical strains :(
So I expanded my veggie patch to help scratch that itch, but trying for a better broccoli or cucumber isn't as much fun as improving a pot strain was.
The U.S. laws regarding seeds seem to swing both ways depending on what the DEA (I believe that's the proper agency) wishes to enforce--and I'm not saying that it makes any sense. After all, the same poppy seeds used in opium and heroin can also be legally employed to pep up a roll or loaf of bread.
Why did some of your posts go 'guest' mate? Disqus being weird again?
Nope it's fine...just paranoid about drawing attention lmao.
ask Marc Emery (or his wife as he is still in jail) if seeds are legal.
1i
There are some issues. There are currently known about 80 cannabinoids and over 400 chemicals in total in Cannabis.
In that spray I mentioned, 'Sativex', there is only 2 extracts used, THC-9 and CBN.
It's been recognised for many years that MJ can treat multiple conditions, like pain, nausea, epilepsy, glaucoma, muscle relaxant, mood relaxant, insomnia etc etc. There is a complex relationship between the different chemicals contained in MJ, that's why different 'strains' get you stoned slightly differently, it's because of that plants particular ratio of those chemicals.
There are also known carcinogens, some the same as tobacco, but when the stats. were looked at for lung cancer for tobacco and MJ only smokers, it turned out MJ smokers had about the same (very slightly reduced) rate then complete non-smokers. Clearly, there is some action/chemical negating the carcinogens causing cancer that tobacco doesn't contain. Apparently it's been shown to have anti-cancer, 'cancer killing' capabilities in a petri dish, as well as the many anecdotal reports.
Another possibility is there may be some 'anti-psychotic' action that could help people with schizophrenia.
Right now, there is much more research needed not only to understand what each chemical does, but also the interactions between them, and what treatments they could be turned into. (clearly a complicated job looking at the numbers alone). That spray isn't effective at treating all things that smoking can, from what I can find researching it.
We are a long, long way from understanding the workings of and all the uses of this plant.
To ban it to medical patients now, while this research hasn't been done and the appropriate medicines haven't been produced is a inhumane stance in my opinion. Smoking or eating it does work, it always has. My country bans it, I am another anecdote to it's multiple medicinal qualities with my illness and symptoms. If they could give me a spray or tab etc that had the appropriate chemical mix I'd be very happy. But because of the politics of it the research hasn't been done, so until then, regardless of what the law here says, I've never felt like a criminal when I've used it. In my opinion I should be allowed to grow my own, for my own use. Not to sell. I have multiple prescription drugs that don't work as well and have harsher side effects then smoking, vaporising or eating MJ, which could largely replace the tablets.
As you know, I wish you the best and certainly do not consider you a criminal merely for using it (some more potent recreational drug maybe), but you admit that it has not been tested anywhere near thoroughly enough and I worry about potential undiscovered deleterious effects. What does your doctor say?
My specialist didn't have a problem with it, other then the legal aspects. He couldn't 'prescribe' it to me in any way, but said if it helped then do what feels right.
As with any drug, there is a % of people that will react very badly to it.
When I smoked it heavily, I very much was 'dumbed down'. I actually did a IQ test with a psychologist 'very stoned', and scored 'average' across all areas, highest in hand-eye co-ordination. When I stopped, after about 2 weeks I could feel my thinking 'speed up' again, and my short term memory start working properly. If you only smoke a spliff after having not been smoking it, that 'dumb feeling' goes within 24 to 48 hours.
So if one was taking it every day, you'll no doubt be 'dumber'. But, that's no different to the prescription pain meds I take now.
People have smoked MJ for at least 3000 years, and as far as is known there is no recorded deaths from it.
One could argue that's a more thorough test then the new drugs being released these days. We have no idea what the long term effects of the prescription stuff I'm on now. :(
I'm all for proper testing and research. Until then, I'm for letting it be smoked or ingested for medicinal reasons. Keep it a ban, but a misdemeanor for non-medical users. It does slow your reaction times, so it is a negative to driving. There's enough 'dumb' people around already, without encouraging more. :)
As long as it's fine with your doctor. Here in the states, the laws regarding its medicinal use are completely crazy and idiotic. I have no problem with its being prescribed because its use can then be supervised; but you have admitted that it can impair one's driving which leads me to considerable concern about the higher octane stuff were marijuana to be legalized.
No arguments from me on that. I also wouldn't like to be in the hands of a surgeon, pilot etc that's been smoking. That's why I'm against it being totally 'legal'.
In my State they have a saliva test for MJ and it's an instant loss of license for a positive result.
My pain meds say 'don't operate machinery if affected', so same thing, slower reaction speed then if not on it. (When you're in pain your not in the mood for a 'cruise' anyways)
I wonder what percent take it for pain (your type of pain that is) and what percent for something else. Any thoughts?
Ah...the yin and yang of weed... :-)
Meet Sativa and Indica.
The Sativa High :
The sativa high is often characterized as uplifting and energetic . The effects of a sativa marijuana are mostly cerebral. They give a feeling of optimism and well - being, as well as providing a good measure of pain relief for certain symptoms. A few pure sativas are also very high in THC content. They are known to have a quite spacey, or hallucinogenic, effect. Sativas are a good choice for daytime smoking.
The Indica High :
The indica highs are most often described as a pleasant body buzz. indicas are great for relaxation, stress relief, and for an overall sense of calm and serenity. Marijuana indicas are also very effective for overall body pain relief, and often used in the treatment of insomnia. They are the late - evening choice of many smokers as an all - night sleep aid. A few pure indica strains are very potent in THC, and will cause the "couch-lock" effect, enabling the smoker to simply sit still and enjoy the experience of the smoke.
The percentage required will depend on the symptoms, and how regularly it's taken (higher % for frequent use, as it's effects will be absorbed).
It treats more then just 'physical' pain, it can also help with mental/emotional pain. It has with me in the past.
So thinking of the people I've known well enough to know their reasons for smoking, it's probably something like 70% for either or both the 'above' types of pain relief. The other 30% were just recreational users. (I'm not counting dealers, who I'd assume are selling it for the money, most dealers I've known also smoke it)
A common side effect if smoked heavily before bedtime, you either don't dream, or you don't remember them. I've known a psychologist that's told me she had a number of PTSD patients that use it to help block nightmares.
But that's just me and the people I've known. I'd only be guessing as I have no idea, but I'd probably say the world-wide use is higher for recreational use then the people I know.
I first smoked for the fun of it, only very occasionally with mates. I'd guess most recreational users only do it occasionally, the more regular/heavy users likely have other reasons, be it addiction or self medication.
Not so sure what you mean by crazy and idiotic. I can only speak about my state but it's a fairly simple and straightforward process to obtain a medical weed card. See a doctor for about ten minutes, get his signature, then get your card.
The doctor doesn't prescribe the weed nor does he supervise its use. You are free to use whatever "octane" suits your fancy and as long as you renew your card with the state every year you'll never need to see the doctor again.
Maybe there is a slightly different way you need to look at your IQ test. I would think the most you could say is that the test perhaps indicates only a changed perception of the test. That's why we use weed. We want our perception changed.
I get what you mean mate. It makes being sick and in pain seem not as bad for me. I should have quantified that post by saying every other time I've done an IQ test I've always scored above average. I can't think as fast or as accurate and my short term memory is atrocious when on pot, compared to when I'm not.
That's not necessarily always a bad thing. :)
I don't put much stock in IQ tests, they're structured so someone that is more literate will do better. I don't think they test intelligence very well, so I don't give a hoot about scores personally.
Weirdly, I'm mostly anti-drug. I puffed on some MJ as a kid, that's how I discovered it helped my symptoms, but don't like the powders etc. That crap will fk you up and kill you.
I monitor what drugs the doctors push at me very closely. I'd be a pill addict now if I didn't.
"So what if the corporations make a profit?"...are you serious? You don't think do you?...If corporations were (alone) allowed to produce these pills and sprays, they will compete for market share and profit. Period. How do you suppose that will play out? Those pills and sprays will have everything added to them from caffeine to monosodiumglutomate (MSG), in order to provide a 'superior' likely addictive product, and if U.S. rules applied those additives would be proprietory secrets. Were you asleep during the tobacco wars? Were you asleep through the onslaught of addictive anti-psychotics and anti depressants dished out for profit in the U.S.? The figure for that is around 30% are wrongly and unnecessarily medicated, addicted and worse...You think it would be safely regulated without being lobbied to the hilt? Your logic 'for' corporate profit is nuts.
I remember the days of the addictive anti-psychotics and anti-depressants. Now, that their ill effects are well-known, they are no longer prescribed. That's called scientific improvement due to influx of new information. Absinthe and laudanum also used to be legal and drug companies made a profit off of those as well
So you're recommending that individuals manufacture pharmaceutical compounds made from marijuana rather than pharmaceutical companies already set up to do just that and can do it far more effectively and efficiently? THAT IS CRAZY!
All in all, I'd say you're the one who's asleep and benighted.
Individuals would simply enjoy the natural product for what it is, since they are not in competition for profit, there is no incentive to start creating home laboratories - that is a capitalist virtue. As Jackmax says, let pharmaceuticals do their work and produce their products, but if left alone to do this...all hell would break loose. Let people have a choice to grow organic, and they will choose that over a cocktail pill produced by corporations for profit, any day of the week (opinion).
Obviously you have a reading problem. I was referring to the compound, NOT THE PLANT ITSELF, described by Docoman and I even quoted from Docoman's post. How many times do I have to repeat this.
On this thread you said: "the solution is to keep the ban on cannabis in place"
1i
Robert those days are very, very far from over. The drug companies in the U.S. are as busy as ever.
As busy as ever doing what?
One way or the other, from where does the pharmacist who fills your doctor's prescription for you get his stock?
Absinthe isn't illegal in the UK, never has been. I thought it was only banned in France, and then in the US after some bloke went nuts and killed his wife, and didn't it turn out he was an alcoholic anyway? Laudanum is illegal, but as long as there are poppies, there will be people using them. Much easier to scratch poppy heads than it is to grow weed. Something called 'seed bombing' became popular here a few years ago, an offshoot of the guerrilla gardening movement. People were throwing little parcels of flower seeds from car windows onto roundabouts, and bits of untended land. Now we have the same but with cannabis plants. Most people don't recognise them or even notice them and they belong to nobody. As for law, it's only a factor in anyone's (criminal) life when they get caught. Laws don't prevent crime or replace a persons conscience, they only punish after the naughty deed is done. ;)
Seed bombing cannabis would produce a lot of male plants along with the more wanted female ones but then seed galore. I can just imagine the amount of pot all over the place the following year and the following one.
1i
They are still doing this, most recently I saw some in Germany. There's a website (somewhere) to showcase the best photos of plants flourishing around the city...in a police statement, a German officer said "We are grateful for the photos posted, as they can help us in locating these plants for removal." Can you imagine the fun you could have using that statement????
As an involved citizen I would personally assume responsibility and direction for the complete removal and burning of any plants pictured growing in my neighborhood.
Absinthe and weed - the two basic food groups.
Why should corporations make money out of something that has been grown naturally for thousands of years. If you can grow your own fruit, vegetables, herbs and livestock (land permitting) why should the corporations need to get involved in anything other than using this plant to research possible other medical treatments or cures for other conditions?
I was not referring to the plant, but to the extract or compound described by Docoman.
No you were referring to the plant, "the solution is to keep the ban on cannabis in place".
1i
Why didn't you quote the entire post,
because the people who don't have land need to eat too.
If your only talking about MJ you only need a wardrobe space to grow your own plant, you don't need a crop planted for your own use..
That is true and it goes the same for planting a few tomatoes on your patio along with lettuce.
Some will say and the smell when it buds? You can easily install a small air filter which would be plenty strong, it works for cigarette smell and other smell.
1i
yeah but you weren't talking just MJ.
correct, because YOU made a sweeping statement that quite clearly included food manufacture...
Legalize the goddam weed, free people from jail who are rotting there for possession, allow people to grow their own and teach them how to make oil. Simple and cheap.
1i
And just how many people are rotting in jail for possession of small amounts (not distribution)?
Reread docoman's post. It's more than just simply making oil, but again being wilfully scientifically ignorant, you wouldn't know that.
Small amount? Who is talking about small amount? Distribution? What do you suppose growers do with their weed? Where do you thing the guy with small amount gets his small amount? It had to be grown, it had to be trimmed, It had to be transported, it had to be sold to reach him/her.
1i
And as I have stated, you have trouble comprehending what you read.
Completely non-responsive.
Go back to your religious doc, you know nothing about cannabis.
1i
And you know nothing about science--and what's worse you think you do.
so because people once held something true that was wrong, all of mankinds advances since have been pointless?
actually the old medieval doctors were nothing like todays. They weren't trained, they had practically no understanding of medicine.
a doctor back in the middle ages had more in common with a modern day homeopath than a modern doctor!
I know quite a few doctors who pine for legalisation, and off the top of my head can think of four who i've actually had a chance to sit down and have a smoke with.
no group of people fits neatly into a stereotype...ever!
Sounds good to me.