Drugs Suppression Police - Ganga could be a legal drug in the future

[Dagnabbit]

These vids have gone viral, but they are scientific and repeated studies so far do not replicate the apparent benefits.
 
there may well be substances preset in marijuana that inhibit certain manifestations of Parkinson's but they are NOT a cure or even shown to be of long term benefit.
The chronic use of marijuana also has potentially undesirable side effects.
 
The use of "medical" marijuana is the "new herbalism" a lot of unproven medical benefits are claimed for the drug....one has to say that one gets the impression that their is a large body of folk out there who believe that if marijuana is approved for medical use that will somehow make recreational use permitted too....
i don't see that to be a good assessment....heroin and opiates are used in medicine but still highly restricted for recreational usage.
 
basically they promote the possible but unproven benefits of medical marijuana not because of any scientific reason but because they WANT it to be so.

What a lot of nonsense.

I had a number of friends in a Leonard Cheshire home back in the 90's, there were a number of people there with MS and Parkinsons. The difference between them on and off weed was astounding.

One friend there 'Parksy' had severe shakes. He'd lost the ability to walk and was just a few years from death. His mother had to buy weed for him. He had a specially adapted smoking set attached to his wheelchair. A pipe he could lean forward and suck on and a holder that someone could put a lit joint into.

Within minutes of smoking a small amount, he could sit still and talk. It was amazing.

People like you sicken me. You've probably spent zero time around people with severe illnesses like this yet you claim that this miracle drug is unproven.

How dare you contribute to preventing people like this getting the help they need to improve the quality of their last few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SpaceKadet]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes

That was a rhetoric question. I will not do your research for you. But you might just start here:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-disease-risks-idUSTRE73Q1Q820110427

and follow up with the WHO report linked in the article.

After that you can just search this fantastic ThaiVisa.com site for alcohol related deaths. You'll be surprised what you'll find.

[Jai Dee]

A post has been removed as it violates the Forum's Fair Use policy.

 

From the Forum Rules:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[swifty5x5]

On 11/2/2560 at 6:47 AM, Get Real said:

Yep! Just add a little bit more fire in the already hot and boiling pot. Actually insane!

That´s my opinion, and if possible maybe I can be overlooked by all the people in this forum that are positive to drugs. Just heard the stories before. There is a reason why it´s illigal in most countries.

Yes. Big Phrma does not want it legal.

[nisakiman]

3 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Seems legit seeing as the biggest criticism of the FCTC has been their failure to accept the benefit of using products to help quit smoking, they are well known for their opposition to less harmful nicotine-containing products, instead only hold on to their "quit or die" policy.

 

But OK, you believe in your little conspiracy theory if you like, it's not like you could have been mislead by big tobacco at all, no of course not, the evil ones are the ones trying to get people to stop smoking, right?

 

To be honest, I see Big Tobacco and Big Pharma as two sides of the same coin; they are as bad and dishonest as each other. Neither give a damn about their customers. Profit is their only motivation.

 

And as for the anti-smoking ideologues, they are the worst of the lot. They lie, lie by omission, exaggerate and deceive as a matter of course. Their ethos is 'the ends justify the means', and 'health' doesn't enter into it, as you note with your nod to their attitude to e-cigs and snus.

 

It is not, and never has been about health. It's about a puritanical and fanatical hatred of smoking and anything which looks like smoking. Which is why the propaganda they employ is specifically designed to foster hatred and disdain for smokers in those that don't smoke. Which is why inventing the 'danger' of passive smoking was a master stroke. If you can get people to fear something, then inculcating hatred is just a small step. It was Sir Charles Godber ('The Godber Blueprint'**), a fanatical anti-smoker, who first suggested at a conference in the seventies that the only way they could destroy smoking is to make people think that smokers were harming them; and so the idea of 'passive smoking' was born. All they needed was some tame researchers and plenty of publicity.

 

** http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.gr/2009/12/godber-blueprint.html

 

Before the propaganda drive really got into gear, smokers were, well, just people who liked to smoke. Nobody really thought about it. Some people smoked, some didn't, and that was the end of it. But propaganda is a powerful tool, and the indoctrination has been so effective that smokers have now been transformed into murderous pariahs, shunned by polite society, exiled from the places they traditionally socialised and hammered with punitive taxes. Yes, propaganda is indeed a powerful tool.

 

I have no objection to governments publicising what they see as health risks. That can be said to fall within their remit.

 

What I do object to is government using coercion via persecution and taxation to try to force me into an 'approved' lifestyle that has been dictated by a small coterie of extremely well funded lobbyists who will do whatever it takes to impose their agenda on everyone else.

[Shawn0000]

5 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

To be honest, I see Big Tobacco and Big Pharma as two sides of the same coin; they are as bad and dishonest as each other. Neither give a damn about their customers. Profit is their only motivation.

 

And as for the anti-smoking ideologues, they are the worst of the lot. They lie, lie by omission, exaggerate and deceive as a matter of course. Their ethos is 'the ends justify the means', and 'health' doesn't enter into it, as you note with your nod to their attitude to e-cigs and snus.

 

It is not, and never has been about health. It's about a puritanical and fanatical hatred of smoking and anything which looks like smoking. Which is why the propaganda they employ is specifically designed to foster hatred and disdain for smokers in those that don't smoke. Which is why inventing the 'danger' of passive smoking was a master stroke. If you can get people to fear something, then inculcating hatred is just a small step. It was Sir Charles Godber ('The Godber Blueprint'**), a fanatical anti-smoker, who first suggested at a conference in the seventies that the only way they could destroy smoking is to make people think that smokers were harming them; and so the idea of 'passive smoking' was born. All they needed was some tame researchers and plenty of publicity.

 

** http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.gr/2009/12/godber-blueprint.html

 

Before the propaganda drive really got into gear, smokers were, well, just people who liked to smoke. Nobody really thought about it. Some people smoked, some didn't, and that was the end of it. But propaganda is a powerful tool, and the indoctrination has been so effective that smokers have now been transformed into murderous pariahs, shunned by polite society, exiled from the places they traditionally socialised and hammered with punitive taxes. Yes, propaganda is indeed a powerful tool.

 

I have no objection to governments publicising what they see as health risks. That can be said to fall within their remit.

 

What I do object to is government using coercion via persecution and taxation to try to force me into an 'approved' lifestyle that has been dictated by a small coterie of extremely well funded lobbyists who will do whatever it takes to impose their agenda on everyone else.

 

" Before the propaganda drive really got into gear, smokers were, well, just people who liked to smoke. Nobody really thought about it. Some people smoked, some didn't, and that was the end of it. "

 

No, they were already disgusting non smokers with their acrid smoke.

 

"the indoctrination has been so effective that smokers have now been transformed into murderous pariahs"

 

The very real effects noted on smokers children have done a good job of that without any propaganda at all.

 

"hammered with punitive taxes"

 

Whereas before non smokers were hammered with the smokers health service bills, which was entirely unfair, and still the taxes don't come close to covering their loss of revenue and health costs combined, they need to be taxed even higher.

 

"government using coercion via persecution and taxation to try to force me into an 'approved' lifestyle that has been dictated by a small coterie of extremely well funded lobbyists who will do whatever it takes to impose their agenda on everyone else."

 

Actually fully supported by the vast majority of the population who are non smokers.

[mogandave]

Back when the majority of people smoked, people were responsible for their own healthcare.

Now the left wants to force public healthcare on everyone, the use public healthcare as an excuse for telling everyone how to live.

Do tobacco taxes go to treat lung cancer patients?


Live, love, laugh

[nisakiman]

9 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

" Before the propaganda drive really got into gear, smokers were, well, just people who liked to smoke. Nobody really thought about it. Some people smoked, some didn't, and that was the end of it. "

 

No, they were already disgusting non smokers with their acrid smoke.

 

"the indoctrination has been so effective that smokers have now been transformed into murderous pariahs"

 

The very real effects noted on smokers children have done a good job of that without any propaganda at all.

 

"hammered with punitive taxes"

 

Whereas before non smokers were hammered with the smokers health service bills, which was entirely unfair, and still the taxes don't come close to covering their loss of revenue and health costs combined, they need to be taxed even higher.

 

"government using coercion via persecution and taxation to try to force me into an 'approved' lifestyle that has been dictated by a small coterie of extremely well funded lobbyists who will do whatever it takes to impose their agenda on everyone else."

 

Actually fully supported by the vast majority of the population who are non smokers.

I rest my case about the effectiveness of propaganda. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly.

[doode]

On 2/11/2017 at 9:14 AM, Wilsonandson said:

Risks of marijuana :-

1/ Studies show cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia, other psychoses, and social anxiety disorders. It can also raise the risk of depression, studies have found.

2/ Heavy marijuana users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide and heavy use of the drug can worsen symptoms of bipolar disease.

3/ Learning, memory and attention are impaired after using cannabis and there's some evidence that they are damaged even after people stop using it.

4/ Studies have found some evidence cannabis use can raise the risk of unemployment, and users earn less than non-users.

5/ It can impair driving.Use may raise the risk of testicular cancer.

6/ Smoking marijuana may trigger a heart attack.

7/ It can worsen bronchitis and chronic cough.

8/ Babies born to women who smoke marijuana while pregnant can weigh too little.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/report-marijuana-users-risk-schizophrenia-drug-helps-pain-n706196

 

It can/could/would. 

<deleted>

[Shawn0000]

3 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

I rest my case about the effectiveness of propaganda. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly.

 

Are you denying that smoke is acrid? 

Are you denying that smoke is harmful to children? 

Are you denying that smokers cost more than they generate in revenue? 

Are you denying that the majority of people are non smokers who do not want to breathe smoke?

You think these facts are propaganda?  Really?  Hilarious!

[PatOngo]

16 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Are you denying that smoke is acrid? 

Are you denying that smoke is harmful to children? 

Are you denying that smokers cost more than they generate in revenue? 

Are you denying that the majority of people are non smokers who do not want to breathe smoke?

You think these facts are propaganda?  Really?  Hilarious!

Shawn, roll yourself a number, get well away from the kids, smoke it and........RELAX!

[Shawn0000]

14 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

Shawn, roll yourself a number, get well away from the kids, smoke it and........RELAX!

We were talking about tobacco by the way, hardly a relaxant, apart from the bowels.

[Alan Deer]

3 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

What a lot of nonsense.

I had a number of friends in a Leonard Cheshire home back in the 90's, there were a number of people there with MS and Parkinsons. The difference between them on and off weed was astounding.

One friend there 'Parksy' had severe shakes. He'd lost the ability to walk and was just a few years from death. His mother had to buy weed for him. He had a specially adapted smoking set attached to his wheelchair. A pipe he could lean forward and suck on and a holder that someone could put a lit joint into.

Within minutes of smoking a small amount, he could sit still and talk. It was amazing.

People like you sicken me. You've probably spent zero time around people with severe illnesses like this yet you claim that this miracle drug is unproven.

How dare you contribute to preventing people like this getting the help they need to improve the quality of their last few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

the plural od anecdote is not data.....wake up and learn some science.

[Moonmoon]

Good step forward.

[Dagnabbit]

3 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

the plural od anecdote is not data.....wake up and learn some science.

I have spent a lot of my life around disabled people - mostly those with purely physical disabilities brought on by disease such as Parkinsons and MS.

 

This is not the "odd anectode" - this is seeing many people transformed instantly.

 

It is incredible that people like you would deny these people a better life. 

 

Science backs it up too - that's why  cannabis based drugs are available in Germany to treat spacticy in patients with MS...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442177/ - go down to the part on Spacticity in MS patients

 

People like you - on your little drug crusade are the cause of a lot of suffering in this world. Some time with disabled people would do you the world of good.

[Alan Deer]

3 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

I have spent a lot of my life around disabled people - mostly those with purely physical disabilities brought on by disease such as Parkinsons and MS.

 

This is not the "odd anectode" - this is seeing many people transformed instantly.

 

It is incredible that people like you would deny these people a better life. 

 

Science backs it up too - that's why  cannabis based drugs are available in Germany to treat spacticy in patients with MS...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442177/ - go down to the part on Spacticity in MS patients

 

People like you - on your little drug crusade are the cause of a lot of suffering in this world. Some time with disabled people would do you the world of good.

Then you should know better.I repeat

 The plural of anecdote is not data - now go and learn some science.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Alan Deer

[Shawn0000]

4 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Then you should know better.I repeat

 The plural of anecdote is not data - now go and learn some science.

 

Wow, are you referring to a peer reviewed publication as an anecdote and then telling someone to learn science?  That was real smart!

[Dagnabbit]

2 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Then you should know better.I repeat

Data is not the plural of anecdote is not data - now go and learn some science.

I posted the results of a study and my own personal experiences.

 

The fact you won't read it because it doesn't agree with your crusade tells everyone all they need to know about you.

 

Perhaps you can explain exactly what is stopping this guy from shaking???

 

Seriously - someone is shaking violently 24x7, they take a few puffs on a joint and are immediately able to sit still and control their limbs? It's not the weed, then what is it?

 

 

 

[Dagnabbit]

1 minute ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Wow, are you referring to a peer reviewed publication as an anecdote and then telling someone to learn science?  That was real smart!

Honestly - it's a terrible life people live with the shakes cause by these diseases. 

 

It's incredible that people like him actually exist that would deny them a bit of peace. 

 

He'll come back now with some studies on man made THC derivatives and say it proves weed doesn't work. Nope - it just means trying to create a patentable synthetic alternative hasn't worked yet. Ask him WHY people are trying to make synthetic versions and he'll be without an answer.

 

The answer of course is - because of how well the plant works...

[Alan Deer]

3 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Wow, are you referring to a peer reviewed publication as an anecdote and then telling someone to learn science?  That was real smart!

There is no peer review study or conclusive study, I'm afraid - learn your scientific methodology.

[Shawn0000]

8 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

There is no peer review study or conclusive study, I'm afraid - learn your scientific methodology.

 

Isn't there, really?  NO peer review study in the link which is actually a review of peer review studies?  It is a review of many peer reviewed studies and reviewing exclusively those providing data from randomized controlled trials, probably better to actually read the link before commenting on others need to learn anything.

[mogandave]

Yes! It cures everything and makes the best rope the world has ever known and it it proven 100% safe with no harmful side effects, plus it gets you loaded.

The only reason it is illegal is because it would put all the pharmaceutical and oil companies out of business.

I blew shotguns to my boy every night until he was 12 and it never hurt him


Live, love, laugh

[anon4546543]

The debate about THC cannabis use has been hijacked. It was never about tobacco smoking. I don't give a rats about tobacco smokers, as long as they are not in my personal space while I am eating, drinking or being in public spaces with my friends. Go stand behind a tree. The cannabis debate was hijacked by the US in the 1930's. Why the propaganda from the US then is still being debated today is almost puerile. Please go find a fact. Cannabis smoking will cause lung and mouth cancer. But the public purse to treat cannabis users is tiny when compared to alcohol, legal supplied drugs, tobacco and almost if not all prohibited drugs 

[Alan Deer]

11 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Isn't there, really?  NO peer review study in the link which is actually a review of peer review studies?  It is a review of many peer reviewed studies and reviewing exclusively those providing data from randomized controlled trials, probably better to actually read the link before commenting on others need to learn anything.

Oh dear...have you read a peer review? No!

[Alan Deer]

55 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Oh dear...have you read a peer review? No!

 

12 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Isn't there, really?  NO peer review study in the link which is actually a review of peer review studies?  It is a review of many peer reviewed studies and reviewing exclusively those providing data from randomized controlled trials, probably better to actually read the link before commenting on others need to learn anything.

 

 

BTW - I don't think you even understand by original statement - "the plural of anecdote is not date" 

furthermore you appear to be relying on a meta analysis that doesn't back up your point of view in regards to my comment which further suggests you don't understand what I'm talking about or referring to.

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Alan Deer

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, Alan Deer said:

 

 

BTW - I don't think you even understand by original statement - "the plural of anecdote is not date" 

furthermore you appear to be relying on a meta analysis that doesn't back up your point of view in regards to my comment which further suggests you don't understand what I'm talking about or referring to.

 

I am not relying on meta data to refute anything, I am simply refuting your statement that there is no peer reviewed study when many reviewed within that link are peer reviewed studies.  I admit, I have no idea what you mean by the plural anecdote is not date, I presumed it was a typo meant to say data.  But, instead of continuing this infantile routine of smugness, why don't you just explain yourself?

Edited February 13, 2017 by Shawn0000

[ajarngreg]

On 2/11/2017 at 6:41 PM, hobz said:

Alcohol = one of the most damaging, directly and indirectly. Agreed.

 

Marriage, ehm, sure. Love is one of the most powerful drugs out there, makes people make horrible decisions.

 

Kill others in road accidents, are you crazy? This should never be accepted.

 

Sleep with ugly people? <deleted> if u outlaw that then i would have to report anyone that sleeps with me! Do you have any idea how often i would be at the police station? Actually not that often *tears*

 

How does sleeping with ugly people and road fatalities fill the governments wallets?

 

LSD should be legalized, extremely dangerous in the wrong hands,, even more dangerous because of its legal status (impossible to know correct dose etc on the black market). Would have great use in a psychiatrists office as well. Illegal because the government didnt like the anti war protests..cant let a psychedelic get in the way of the money making murder machine that is the military industrial complex can we? We gotta have our priorities straight, bombing and droning = good. Psychedelics = bad, very very bad.

 

Dude, what drugs are you on right now? Im on sleep deprivation and exhaustion from buying a house in thailand and generally being ugly.

 

 

 You seem to know what life is all about. Keep on moving and good luck with your house. I mean good luck with the relationship with the person the house is built on. 

 

      BTW, I'm on a very natural drug, also called Adrenaline. 

 

    

[Dagnabbit]

22 hours ago, Alan Deer said:

Then you should know better.I repeat

 The plural of anecdote is not data - now go and learn some science.

None of the above was anecdotal - and you know it.

 

Here's plenty of peer-reviewed studies - 68% of which are for medical marijuana for MS patients (as I have described) - http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

 

One of the issues with these studies in my opinion is the attempt to use synthetic THC.

 

As you are so smart - maybe you can tell us why someone would synthesize THC in the first place, if not for the fact that the plant works.

 

Oh yes - you can't - all you can do is repeat the same "no data" when presented with overwhelming data.

[Alan Deer]

6 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

I am not relying on meta data to refute anything, I am simply refuting your statement that there is no peer reviewed study when many reviewed within that link are peer reviewed studies.  I admit, I have no idea what you mean by the plural anecdote is not date, I presumed it was a typo meant to say data.  But, instead of continuing this infantile routine of smugness, why don't you just explain yourself?

There are no peer reviewed studies that replicate the claims made by these videos - that is what i said earlier......

there are no trials or studies that can make any claims for marijuana - all those that do are not clinically sound peer reviewed trials. clinical trials carried out along scientific principals have consistently showed that the claims are either false or grossly exaggerated.

 

The plural of anecdote is not data......if you have difficulty in working out the typo of a well-known saying then it would account for your uncritical acceptance of non-scientific anecdote about marijuana. As Isais you need to be able to differentiate between anecdote and evidence - failure to do this wappears to have lead you up the garden path.

 

Unfortunately marijuana is thhe new herbalism - it is claimed to cure everything but in reality cures nothing.....the only thing sustaining theese bogus claims is that stoners WANT their to be evidence -something that is so far sadly lacking.

 

[Alan Deer]

2 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

None of the above was anecdotal - and you know it.

 

Here's plenty of peer-reviewed studies - 68% of which are for medical marijuana for MS patients (as I have described) - http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

 

One of the issues with these studies in my opinion is the attempt to use synthetic THC.

 

As you are so smart - maybe you can tell us why someone would synthesize THC in the first place, if not for the fact that the plant works.

 

Oh yes - you can't - all you can do is repeat the same "no data" when presented with overwhelming data.

I'll repeat what I always say to those who delude themselves..you don't even know what studies have been done - or how they were carried out and they don't use THC .....but NO CLINICAL trial has EVER found verifiable benefits for marijuana - effects are anecdotal - you need to understand this.

 

There are no peer reviewed studies that replicate the claims made by these videos - that is what i said earlier......

there are no trials or studies that can make any claims for marijuana - all those that do are not clinically sound peer reviewed trials. clinical trials carried out along scientific principals have consistently showed that the claims are either false or grossly exaggerated.

 

The plural of anecdote is not data......if you have difficulty in working out the typo of a well-known saying then it would account for your uncritical acceptance of non-scientific anecdote about marijuana. As Isais you need to be able to differentiate between anecdote and evidence - failure to do this wappears to have lead you up the garden path.

 

Unfortunately marijuana is the new herbalism - it is claimed to cure everything but in reality cures nothing.....the only thing sustaining theese bogus claims is that stoners WANT their to be evidence -something that is so far sadly lacking.

 

and contrary to your fogged up belief, this is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the world's scientific community.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Alan Deer