Medical Marijuana: are we ready?

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2825#more-2825

"Cannabis has been used recreationally and medically for centuries. Despite long experience, relatively little is known about the risks and benefits of its use as a medication. A considerable portion of our ignorance can be attributed to government discouragement of cannabis research. Searching the NIH website brings up many studies of both cannabis abuse and cannabis as a therapeutic agent, but most of the general information available is about cannabis as a drug of abuse.

And there is no doubt about the abuse potential and withdrawal potential of marijuana except among hard core denialists. The data is clear: marijuana discontinuation is associated with a withdrawal syndrome in many users, with some experts likening it in symptoms and severity to nicotine withdrawal.

As with any pharmacologically active substance, there are no “side effects”, only effects which we desire and those we do not. Given that cannabis is clearly a powerful pharmacologic agent, that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence supporting its use, and that there is scientific plausibility to these claims, its potential use as a therapeutic drug should be investigated seriously.

As marijuana becomes increasingly available for medical use, practitioners of science-based medicine need to evaluate the evidence for the use of this drug. In evaluating a new drug, we must ask a number of questions, including those of safety, efficacy, and perhaps redundancy. Claims for the efficacy of marijuana tend to be hyperbolic, with no condition being exempt from its benefits.

..."


-------------------------------------------------------------


This is probably the most science-based and most thoughtful piece that I have come across on this matter. A very good read, IMO.

[the other one]

1. Hard-corps withdrawal denier.

Thats me.

But I am only using myself as an example. And everyone I've ever known.

[HuckleB]

2. Well, almost everyone I've ever known struggled to stop, if that was their goal.

[the other one]

7. Why would someone want to stop?

Being unwilling is not the same as being unable.

I could stop watching football every sunday.

But I would miss it and I don't want to.

[HuckleB]

8. So you're saying your original post has no basis, even as anecdote?

[lame54]

17. it's habitual - not physically addictive

[HuckleB]

41. That's your claim.

We're learning a lot more about habituation, and addiction of all types.

Those old cliches don't mean much, anymore.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. It's not a cliche. It's NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE.

Drink a fifth of booze a day for a year, then stop cold turkey. See what happens.

Smoke 3-4 joints of really good pot a day for a year, then stop cold turkey. See what happens.

Repeat this experiment with ANY MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

Marijuana is not physically addictive by ANY definition of the word. The worst thing that happens to long-term users when they quit is generally a headache, maybe some crankiness. Alcohol withdrawls can kill people. Got any hard numbers of people who have died from "marijuana withdrawls"?

The 'old cliches don't mean much', which is why the $40 Billion Dollar a year drug war industry is constantly floating new ones, like: "Sure, you smoked pot when you were young, and you're none the worse for wear.... but that stuff your college age kids smoke is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT DRUG OMG OMG!!!"



But it's very simple. Marijuana is NOT physically addictive. Period.

[HuckleB]

113. Again you are basing your statement on a 20-year-old knowledge of the brain.

You have to ignore all that we've learned about brain plasticity to make that statement.

Is that what you choose to do?

[Warren DeMontague]

251. Get back to me when you get those statistics on deaths from marijuana withdrawls.

I'm not talking about "habituation" or "brain plasticity" or even "psychological dependence"- I am talking about physical addiction, marked by severe physiological symptoms that often times need to be treated in a hospital/emergency room environment.

Have you even watched an alcoholic go through a severe case of the DTs? Just curious.

[HuckleB]

254. Isn't red herring tasty?

[Warren DeMontague]

305. No, it's not a red herring, because you're claiming marijuana is "physically addictive".

It's not. Physical addiction and withdrawl symptoms are well-known from a physiological and medical standpoint, and marijuana doesn't cause them.

That doesn't mean that marijuana is wonderful, it doesn't mean smoking it can't be bad for you, it doesn't even mean that there aren't users who exhibit signs of psychological dependence or "habituation" or what-have-you.

But if you're going to try to float crap about how "current science has discovered that it's physically addictive" or whatever, you're flat-out wrong.

You didn't answer my question, either- have you ever seen or experienced an alcoholic going through severe DTs? I have.

[HuckleB]

327. So you're choosing to believe that the brain is not plastic?

If you do believe in brain plasticity, then you're going to have to start looking at addiction in a different than it was looked at back in the 1980s.

[Warren DeMontague]

368. You keep repeating yourself. Like I said, get back to me when you have some hard evidence of

marijuana users going through physical withdrawls. If you're right, that shouldn't be too hard- there are hundreds of millions of pot smokers on the planet.

[HuckleB]

369. You're gonna overcook that red herring, man.

You're repeating yourself. I'm not going to pretend it's 1990. You apparently think that's just fine.

[Warren DeMontague]

370. Okay, what the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "1990"

There aren't people running around going through physical withdrawls from Marijuana today, just like there weren't 20 years ago.

You do understand what "withdrawl" means, don't you? You do understand what "physical addiction" means?

So please- answer the question: have you ever seen an alcoholic go through the DTs?

[HuckleB]

375. Now you're starting to get a clue.

Starting. But just starting. Maybe you will educate yourself, and begin to understand that using old references doesn't wash.

[Warren DeMontague]

384. Answer. The. Question. Have you ever seen an alcoholic go through the DTs, or not?

The reason I ask is because I want to know if you have even the remotest clue as to what "physical addiction"- and yes, it's a real physiological phenomenon, not just a manifestation of the "plastic brain" or whatever- entails.

You seem to have endless amounts of time to engage in Sphinx-like riddles and responses that read like zen koans. I don't, so if you can't answer the simple, straightforward question I've raised above, we're done here.

[HuckleB]

392. Again, your question is nothing but a distraction.

You haven't read the piece I posted, and you have such a closed mind that you are unwilling to discuss the matter with any intellectual honesty. You want to define the discussion, so as to maintain your very narrow world view. Sorry, I don't play that way.

Either open your mind, become curious, or refrain from posting on threads where people hope to have an actual discussion with people who want to use their brains.

[Warren DeMontague]

423. translation: "No, I've never seen an alcoholic go through the DTs"

I thought so.

[HuckleB]

424. Translation: I'm not eating your herring.

[Warren DeMontague]

426. Right. You're too busy strirring up shit, as others in the thread have noticed.

It's very simple- and unlike you, I'm actually talking facts instead of rings-around-rings of bullshit babble- You claim that pot is "physically addictive". The onus on you is to provide some evidence that this is the case; you know, deaths from withdrawls, emergency room statistics, that sort of thing.

You won't do that. You can't do that. Beyond that, I suspect you don't have any clue as to what "physically addictive" even means.

You don't want to talk about that, because you're having too much fun with whatever-the-fuck you think you're accomplishing, here.

Either open your mind, become curious, or refrain from posting on threads where people hope to have an actual discussion with people who want to use their brains.

First off, buddy, you don't get to tell me what to do, where to post, or what to say. I don't know what makes you think you're placed to issue fatwas on what sorts of discussions are permitted in your threads. As for "discussion", your idea of discussion seems to consist of exclusively telling people they're wrong about subjects they clearly know far more than you do, then running away or getting cute when challenged to provide factual backup.

That's not "discussion", that's shit-stirring.

And since you've obviously never seen an actual alcoholic going through actual physical withdrawls, let me put it simply: physical addiction is a real physiological phenomenon, it can be life-threatening, severe withdrawl should be handled in a medical environment, oftentimes requiring sedation, and chronic pot smokers, gamblers, and "sex addicts", as much as they may have ancillary difficulties related to their behaviors, do NOT experience those sorts of symptoms when they stop. Ever. Period.

Good day.

[HuckleB]

428. That's right.

Since you can't discuss the matter with an ounce of intellectual honesty, you just award me whatever motivation you want me to have and run.

You are still going off on nonsense. You haven't addressed the actual article to date, and you never will.

Game over.

[Betsy Ross]

354. Thank you. n/t

[HuckleB]

363. Here's one example of the type of thing current research is finding in regard to addiction.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1507/3181.abstract

[fascisthunter]

418. That's Science... deal with it!

[HuckleB]

420. And science questions itself.

Which is why our understanding of addiction and brain processes is well beyond that old school knowledge.

Science isn't static. You have to keep up. So try to catch up.

[the other one]

20. Not wanting to is different than not able to.

I have never met someone who wanted to stop but was unable to.

People who have to stop because of legal reasons, drug tests...In these cases, don't "want" to stop, they are being forced to stop. It is hard to stop doing something you love doing because someone tells you you aren't allowed to, even if its not harmless and fun like pot. But that is rebelliousness and an american longing for freedom, not addiction and withdrawal.


I HAVE met many people who wanted to get stoned, but were unable to find it.

grammar edit

[HuckleB]

43. I don't think you've met many pot smokers then.

[lame54]

322. I don't think you have either

[HuckleB]

331. Of course you don't.

You don't want to think about anything but your own preconceived notions.

[NikRik]

119. 15year+ of daily use !

I smoked pot daily for years I only smoked it at night after work ! I found it was great for helping me relax and also I slept so much better thru the night and had no lingering effect the next morning like many sleep aids.I was 36 years old when I married for the first time and after my second child was born 2 years after my first I decided to stop . Except for restless sleep which I had B/4 I started smoking pot I had no withdrawal symptoms and my health was in good shape. I always and still believe as long as liquor and cigs can be purchased legally. Anyone suffering thru our legal process for possesing pot is simply ridiculous ,it should be leagal for medicial and recreationial use, its basicially a harmless weed and in the future we will be laughed at for being so subborn on this subject !
Take Care NikRik

[alfredo]

238. I never had withdrawal symptoms back in the days I smoked pot. I'd go a

couple days without smoking, then realize I hadn't smoked for several days. There was no physical or emotional symptoms. When I used tobacco, going without was rather uncomfortable.

[mitchtv]

16. what crap "withdrawal"

you stop when you want to period

[HuckleB]

39. Pick yourself up by the bootstraps!

Roar!

[me b zola]

260. Ahhh.

You sound like a twelve stepper who is sure that everyone else needs to "be saved".


Note: not all twelve steppers are like this, just some.

[HuckleB]

380. You missed the sarcasm.

But that doesn't surprise at DU, anymore.

[fascisthunter]

419. We used to call them "Big Book" Nazis

they are a reason so many leave AA meetings.

[Taverner]

176. Another Hard Core Withdrawal Denier here too

I've gone months without a smoke, and this was after months of nothing but smoke

No problem - about the worst I had to face was waking up a few times in the night

[TheDebbieDee]

3. Imagine that. A medicine that that makes the patient

fell good afterwards. Oh, the horror!

[HuckleB]

4. I'm really not sure how your overgeneralization applies to this piece.

[ixion]

5. marijuana is NOT physically addictive, so any comparisons to nicotene withdrawal

are misplaced.

Sure, there are psychological effects that may make one think they are physical, but they're not.

And any article that claims to be scientific but makes that comparison is not really being scientific at all.

Marijuana is a low-grade hallucinogen. Hallucinogens are NOT physically addicting. Period.

[HuckleB]

6. Instead of just going with the old cliches, you might want to look further.

http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/04/comparing_cannabis_and_nicotin_1.php

[ixion]

9. It's not cliche, it's the truth

Sorry. Nice try though. Way to keep pushing the war on drugs!

[HuckleB]

11. In other words, you choose to ignore all evidence that goes against your preconceived notions.

And I am not pushing a war on drugs because evidence that you don't like exists.

[ixion]

14. there's nothing preconceived about it

I've had decades of first hand experience, and studied both the subjective and objective effects of a wide variety of psychotropic substances.

I've seen "studies" like this before trying to be passed off as "scientific" and they're not.

[HuckleB]

36. In other words, you go with anecdote.

I'll take science, and the anecdotes I've seen personally don't mesh with your claims either.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

30. you're sterotype is misplaced

and shows what you know about pot smokers. Sure, there are those that have trouble. But there are millions of hard working citizens who smoke pot.

[JuniperLea]

33. Gosh... a list of the hard-core pot heads I know...

A HS principal... a business and tax accountant who is an enrolled agent... a real estate broker dealing exclusively in Los Angeles area properties with prices in excess of $1,000,000,000... the manager of a posh hotel... the owner of a posh Bev Hills catering company...

All very successful people.

And that's just those I know personally... you should try Googling "famous potheads" and other such search terms.

Stereotypes are for losers, dude.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Several famous recording artists, actors, writers, directors

owners of businesses large and small, lawyers of every sort, and elected officials. Pot heads I have known.

[martymar64]

76. Abe Lincoln was a pothead

Who could dispute Honest Abe? Not me! :7

[mdmc]

47. not true

case in point - me.
Pot mess you up.
That shit dangerous.
Be safe.
Stay kind.

I admit that it is dangerous and could be trouble. Of course, compared to the drug war, pot is oxygen (I am trying to state that the drug war is far more dangerous then drug use).

[HamdenRice]

50. Pretty much my feelings

The drug war is stupid and it should be legalized, but I've known too many people whose lives were fucked by smoking. Not saying it happens to everyone, but to say it happens to no one is insane.

Also I know more former pot smokers than pot smokers, and all the former pot smokers I know think it's a horrible very habit forming drug.

[mdmc]

59. what makes it so good is what is so bad and dangerous..

smokers wouldn't do it if it didn't have an effect. That effect is dangerous. It would suck if it was safe and harmless.

[anigbrowl]

23. present the evidence for your claim then

So far your objections consist only of hand waving and anecdotal experience. The evidence for withdrawal symptoms do not provide a definite answer and suffers from a variety of shortcomings, but there is a case that it's an issue for some users:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS326US326&sourceid=chrome&q=marijuana%20withdrawal%20symptoms&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws

Of course, one can also point out that alcohol is legal despite well known issues of dependence and withdrawal among alcoholics, so I don't see this as a critical factor that should hold up marijuana legalization. To my mind it's better to acknowledge that it's not for everybody and creates problems for some users than to pretend that nothing bad can ever take place in connection with marijuana.

[ixion]

29. where did I say it was problem free?

Of course it is not for everyone. That is not my claim. My claim is that it is not physically addicting, but only psychologically addicting.

[anigbrowl]

34. you are claiming it's not physically addictive, but you're not presenting any evidence for this

I am pointing out that there is some evidence to suggest it may be, and that evidence is flawed but means we can't rule out the possibility and should research it further. I have also (just now) pointed out that THC is known to activate an opioid receptor in the brain (u1), which is known to play a role in physical dependence.

I invite you to consider the following paper, reprinted from the British Journal of Pharmacology: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1575338/ 'Marijuana and cannabinoid regulation of brain reward circuits'.

[ixion]

56. I am pointing out the millions of pot smokers who continue on with their lives

in the absence of pot.

That is greater than a study, because it's real life.

[anigbrowl]

57. In other words you have no answer

My point is not that marijuana dependency is severe or intolerable, but that there is scientific reason to believe it is somewhat physically addicting because it is known to act on a neural pathway which is known to be strongly correlated with physical addiction.

I am quite OK with acknowledging that marijuana can be addictive. Other drugs like nicotine and alcohol are addictive, seemingly to a much greater extent, and we find that risk socially acceptable. You are insisting that it can't be addictive in defiance of the evidence. Nobody ever claimed it was so addictive that the pot-smoking segment of society would grind to a halt if their supply was taken away - that is a straw man argument.

Why are you so resistant to new scientific information? I think attitudes like yours do more harm than good, because advancing questionable claims in the name of legalization undermines the credibility of marijuana advocates. It's just as important to acknowledge science that informs us better about the risks of consuming pot as it is to acknowledge science establishing its benefits or benign impact over time.

[ixion]

67. I'm not unwilling to consider new data...in fact

I will go so far to say (in the context of this debate) that this study could be spot on accurate. That's great for the study, and lousy for people who have to live their lives as criminals because of a lifestyle choice that is arguably more sane than the legal alternatives.

So okay, let's say I accept this study as scientific fact that marijuana might be somewhat physically addictive.

Does that change anything in real life for real people who suffer because of draconian drug laws? Not necessarily.

I guess maybe we're arguing from two different sides. You're saying it is mildly physically addictive and I'm saying that that fact is irrelevant to whether or not it ought to be legalized; and that the mild physical addiction is inconsequential in the day-to-day lives of marijuana users.

That is: for all practical intents and purposes, it is not substantially physically addictive.

[Warpy]

13. Symptoms are extremely mild and attributable

more to the anxiety of having a coping mechanism withdrawn than any physical symptoms from pot withdrawal.

That might change when medical cannabis becomes available year round, but pot smokers typically go through periods of drought in the late spring and early summer with no adverse symptoms but anxiety.

Even the article you cited mentions dependence instead of addiction.

[ixion]

15. exactly...

I appreciate your insight.

[HuckleB]

45. Not always.

Sorry, but I've seen plenty of pot smokers go through much more than anxiety.

And the studies linked through the pieces I posted also show more.

And we're just beginning to get some really good studies on addiction processes.

[ixion]

55. Psychological dependency can manifest in a variety of way above and beyond anxiety

but it's still not physical addition.

[HuckleB]

70. To begin with, research is going beyond that old claim. (I posted some links to it above.)

On top of the specific research, what we know about brain plasticity makes any claims of purely "psychological" addiction almost baseless.

Here's a recent piece that touches on the second point. Brain changes can occur in addictions that are not substance related.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/23/illness-theory-gaining-ground/

[PassingFair]

117. Let's see the film of pot smokers going through DT's ... Oh wait, they DON'T!

There is a certain population of pot smokers who
are self-medicating, for bi-polar, or depression
or other medical reasons.

When they stop smoking, their anxiety may return.

This is NOT the same thing as "withdrawl" symptoms.

[HuckleB]

126. And another red herring.

Cut the knee-jerk crap. No wonder it has taken so long to make any progress in terms of legalization.

[bamacrat]

330. Its not addicitive and even if it were that wouldnt be a reason to keep it illegal.

Cigarettes are way more addictive, kill people and are perfectly legal. Alcohol is addictive, kills people and perfectly legal. Caffeine is addictive and legal, Prescription drugs are extremely addictive can kill and are legal. Weed doesnt kill people. I smoke for 5 years straight daily, I had to quit to get a job (I have a very addictive personality) and I have had no problem, not even when I was around it. Cigarettes on the other hand have been a horrible struggle for me. Just because a very very very small minute percentage of people have problems with it should be no reason to keep it illegal, those people just shouldn't do it, like those with alcohol problems shouldnt drink.

[HuckleB]

341. Again, you ignore current science at your peril.

And I'm not advocating to keep it illegal.

In fact, that really wasn't what this thread was supposed to be about at all. Unfortunately, that's all that most marijuana advocates at DU can talk about, apparently.

[bamacrat]

383. What science? The government blocks most all studies on pots effects.

Also many international studies have shown it is no worse than alcohol and far less addictive. I think the number was 7% of users became dependent where over 70% of caffeine and tobacco users were.

http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm

[HuckleB]

393. Apparently, you're not paying attention.

This piece links to several studies itself.

Go to Medical News Today, put "Marijuana" in the search function. You'll find quite a few more.

[bamacrat]

411. Consider the source.

Those who would stand to lose profits or perceive it as harmful to their business or interest will find ways to prove its negatives. True that can be said about the pro people as well. but, the most important point that cannot not be debated is that you cannot not die from it unlike many legal substances.

[HuckleB]

414. And now you're off on another red herring.

Discussion clearly means nothing to you. Your propaganda is overboard.

[bamacrat]

436. You just say that any time someone makes a valid point.

Agree or disagree whatever.

[HuckleB]

438. If you had actually responded to the topic I posted, I wouldn't say it.

You have yet to do so. You post off topic, with diversions and red herring arguments.

It's not my fault that you seem incapable of offering anything else.

[bamacrat]

451. This article is set up to affirm what you think.

Example: And there is no doubt about the abuse potential and withdrawal potential of marijuana except among hard core denialists.
Denialists = Actual users.
I have quit smoking marijuana - easy
I am struggling to quit cigarettes - One year later still so damn hard. This article was written by people whose best interests are served if they can find some reason to paint marijuana in a negative light. I posted an article from doctors who said it was not addictive or harmful, you dismissed that.

You like the info that makes you feel right.

I like the info that proves Im right.

[HuckleB]

461. You certainly have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't even know why I posted this article. It's clear that your life is lived to "prove" you're right.

I don't live life like that.

Try again.

[bamacrat]

336. Also most "anxiety" is due to its illegality.

If it were legal and safe to buy what would you worry about. People who say its bad obviously only did it once and didnt like it, which is ok, but now since it wasnt great for them they try to make a bad thing.

[HuckleB]

342. Now that's hokum.

[bamacrat]

382. Some people have anxiety ill admit

But the large majority of times people get anxious is when they hear a car door or something and think its the police. Paranoia comes with all mind altering substances, drunk people are bad about it and violent, never ever met a violent pot head.

[HuckleB]

394. That might be your anecdotal experience.

But a fair percentage of people become anxious about many things when high. Where I live, no gives a rip about the police in regard to marijuana, and anxiety is just as prevalent.

[bamacrat]

410. Well then people who do not react well to something shouldnt do it.

Like all things if you dont like how it make you feel dont do it. Still doesnt make it bad. Some people get bad heartburn when they eat pizza or other greasy foods, so if they want to avoid that they should not eat those foods, doesnt make them bad.

[HuckleB]

415. Duh.

And yet many people do continue to use it, despite repeated experiences like that. Why do you think that is?

[anigbrowl]

19. That's far too broad. 'Hallucinogens' covers a wide variety of different substances

Ketamine, LSD, psilocybin (shrooms), opium and marijuana all have hallucinogenic effects, but are significantly different chemically. While I'm pro-legalisation, I'm against snake oil and claims that marijuana i a universal panacaea entirely free of ill effects.

[ixion]

21. nope, you're mixing up your drugs...

Ketamine is a tranquilizer.

Opium is an opiate.

Neither one of these drugs is a hallucinogen, despite having subjective hallucinogenic effects.

It's ignorance like this that keeps marijuana illegal. Please don't spread falsehoods.

[anigbrowl]

25. No, I'm not.

I stated hallucinogenic effects as my inclusion criteria, though I left out other drugs with deleriant effect, which are somewhat different. Ketamine is not a tranquilizer; medically it is employed as an anaesthetic, and is well known for its hallucinogenic properties at recreational doses.

I notice you ignored my broader point that marijuana is quite chemically distinct from other such drugs, including LSD and psilocybin which are the most widely recognized hallucinogens. Your casual assertion that all hallucinogenic drugs are non-addicting and that therefore the same is true for marijuana is unsupportable.

[ixion]

27. I'm talking about the class of drugs, not their subjective effect

there is a major difference.

And yes, you are, I'm afraid.

[anigbrowl]

31. The classification is based on effect

If you want to assert characteristics based on their chemical identities, then you need to look at their chemical properties. THC is a cannibinoid. Psilocybin is a tryptamine. LSD is an egoline.

You can't draw deductions about the addictive potential of marijuana from the fact that other popular hallucinogens appear to lack such potential, because they have distinctly different pharmacology. LSD binds strongly to 5HT receptors (though not all of them), for example, while THC binds to CB and an opioid receptor but LSD doesn't bind to these at all.

So far your objections just consist of telling me I'm wrong, but you haven't backed them up with any reasoning. I question whether you really understand the science here.

[ixion]

32. here you go

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/bruin.htm

[anigbrowl]

35. Oh please. There's nothing there later than 1967 and it doesn't even cite sources properly.

It's 2009. That research is 42+ years out of date and it's foolish to pretend there have been no advances in the study of pharmacology since then. It's an interesting historical document but not scientifically.

Marijuana is not addicting. The use does not develop any physical dependence (see below). (Mayor's Committee on Marihuana, New York City, 1944; Allentuck & Bowman, 1942; Freedman & Rockmore, 1946; Fort, 1965a, 1965b; Panama Canal Zone Governor's Committee, 1933; Phalen, 1943; Indian Hemp-Drug Commission, 1894; Watt, 1965; I Crim 5351 Calif. District Court of Appeal, 1st Appel. Dist.; United Nations, 1964a, 1964b)

GMAFB. That's ancient history in scientific terms.

[ixion]

38. Once you've proven it, the question is answered...

The properties of THC have not changed.

[anigbrowl]

44. Nonsense. Science reverses itself on a regular basis. See #34, please

in which I link to a 2004 study detailing the effect of THC on an opioid receptor known to be involved in physical addiction. While THC hasn't changed (though concentrations have, through selective breeding), we have learned more about its action in the brain, and there is more to be learned in the future.

You are assuming that we knew everything there was to be known about the chemical in 1967 and that nothing has been discovered since. If you want to gather scientific evidence for a position, you start with the most recent research and work backwards.

[ixion]

54. No one is asking whether alcohol is addictive... it's a quantitative and answerable question:

Yes, alcohol is physically addictive, even though methods of brewing it have changed over the years.

THC is still THC, despite these alleged increases in potency.

It's very simple: If it were physically addictive, you would go through a physical withdrawal, just as you would with heroin or alcohol or nicotine. This is not the case, however.

Psychological withdrawal can be difficult, but it is simply not the same as physical withdrawal.

Your argument about progressive scientific study is valid, of course. But there is ample evidence to support the common knowledge that marijuana is not physically addictive. If it were, you'd have millions of pot smokers disabled every time there was a drought. Again, not the case.

[HuckleB]

75. The science says otherwise, at least for some.

Repeating age old claims does not make them true.

[nebenaube]

111. What is unsupportable is the concept that...

What is unsupportable is the concept that cannabinoids would be capable of bonding to opioid receptor cites. Sorry, dude, there may well be cannabinoid receptors located in adjacent proximity to opioid receptor sites but to convince me; you will have to provide a molecular model of that interaction that follows the physics of bio-chemistry.

[debbierlus]

216. I love pot, but I don't agree that it isn't physically addictive...I have seen too many friends

Go through pot withdrawal.

Cold sweats. Feeling nauseous. Really big mood swings.

I still think it is an excellent recreational and medical drug, and I think some of this could be alleviated by the removal of toxic pot from the system (mexican pesticide crap) and people having access to top quality, clean strains. I am not anti-marijuana in the least, and I believe it should be legalized.

[Warpy]

10. They're right about research in the US

What little has been done is full of weasel words to protect the DEA.

More research has been done offshore, although that's pretty sparse, too.

The consensus so far, and it's a very early consensus, is that cannabis isn't particularly curative of any disease process but can be used as adjunctive therapy for patient comfort, which it does increase significantly.

Unless people think this is a slam, most drugs out there are non curative drugs and only control symptoms, whether from high blood pressure or pain.

Cannabis seems to have a wide range of medical applications as an adjunct to analgesia, an antinausea drug on its own, to reduce intraocular pressure in glaucoma that is resistant to drugs, and as an appetite stimulant in people suffering wasting from cancer and HIV.

Plus, it was a hell of a lot of fun back in the good old days.

[HuckleB]

12. Since I'm leaving my Internet access for a bit, I give you the post of the day award on this thread.

I couldn't agree more.

[rhett o rick]

24. yeah man

[Fly by night]

83. Warpy, please read post #81 and the links provided therein.

Please. Otherwise, you might keep underplaying the beneficial effects of cannabis in DU threads like this one. As important and medically beneficial as the palliative effects of cannabis are, they are a minor portion of the medical benefits of cannabis that we are already well aware of.

It would be nice if the US of A would allow our medical scientists to join the 21st century (or even the 20th) to conduct cannabis research in this country on something else than the schwag being grown at Ole Miss -- the only cannabis available for any government-allowed research in this country. That dirt weed is so bad that the government provides 300 joints per month to the handful of federally-approved patients grandfathered in the IND program started in the early 90s. And even 10 joints a day of Uncle Sam's dirt-weed don't provide those patients much relief. I know because I know most of them personally.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

26. It doesn't do that to everyone...

I had a group of girlfriends in my 20's who called smoking "getting motivated" because we were capable of very deep and detailed thinking.

That's how I passed my Mensa tests, too (first one in six to put the pencil down with each of three, back-to-back tests). That's how I put together my first electronics kit, and my 10-piece home entertainment system in an hour or so (first time I'd ever done anything like it).

You spout stereotypical bullshit, my friend.

Edited to say... it is widely available now... I'm not sure why you think it isn't.

[krabigirl]

60. Funny, when I used to partake, I lost tons of weight. It made me want to exercise..a lot.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. Crap. I meant to un-rec this.

First time I have done that too. :(

[HuckleB]

37. Bummer.

Why are there so many anti-science posters at DU, anyway?

I thought evidence mattered.

[Ruby the Liberal]

51. I am very pro-legalization

Do whatever studies people want to do, just free the weed.

[HuckleB]

78. How does that justify an unrec for a piece that addresses medical uses of marijuana?

[Flaneur]

439. One justifies it when the OP behaves like an asshole.

Responding to every response with: "Blah blah blah" and "red herring." That's how.

Proudly unrecced.

[HuckleB]

440. When every response has virtually nothing to do with the topic...

... makes a personal attack on me, or offers up some other pointless diversionary tactic with extreme zealotry, what else should I do? Why shouldn't I name the thing with the proper name?

Your crap is aimed at the wrong guy.

You're proud of immature, anti-science, anti-curiosity nonsense?

Yikes.

[HuckleB]

40. Wow!

So, it appears that the anti-vaccination crowd is not the only anti-science group at DU.

This piece is hardly anti-marijuana. It's just that it doesn't buy into the overselling of the stuff.

And yet the vast majority of the responses to it are knee-jerk, anti-science rants.

[anigbrowl]

52. Precisely.

I am very much pro legalization and taxable sale, but a lot of people have wildly unrealistic expectations (that pot will single-handedly repair the California budget, replace major food crops and cure cancer). For me it's a freedom issue, with pot coming out well ahead in cost/benefit considerations. That's all, and it's plenty. It's not going to result in a green utopia.

[HuckleB]

77. Exactly!

And that's very much in line with the thoughts of the author, although he sticks to the possible medical use of marijuana.

[Fumesucker]

53. Cannabis may indeed be mildly addictive...

Of course, like any other psychoactive substance the effects vary from person to person.

But unlike alcohol, you cannot die from cannabis withdrawal.

And alcohol is 100% legal for adults, provided they do not drive while under the influence.

It is already well established beyond any scientific doubt that alcohol is a more dangerous drug of abuse than cannabis, therefore any delay in legalization due to concerns over safety are sheerest bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome

Withdrawal symptoms

* Agitation<8>
* Alcoholic hallucinosis<5>
* Anorexia<8>
* Anxiety and panic attacks<5><9>
* Catatonia<10>
* Confusion<5>
* Delirium tremens<5>
* Depression<11><12>
* Derealization
* Diaphoresis<8>
* Diarrhea<8>
* Euphoria<5>
* Fear<5>
* Gastrointestinal upset<8>
* Hallucinations<8>
* Headache<8>
* Hypertension<8>
* Insomnia<8>
* Irritability<5>
* Nausea and vomiting<13>
* Palpitations<8>
* Psychosis<5><14>
* Rebound REM sleep<15>
* Restlessness<5>
* Seizures and death<8>
* Sweating<8>
* Tachycardia<8>
* Tremors<8>
* Weakness<8>
* Hyperthermia(fever)

[HuckleB]

69. Old territory.

And that doesn't have a thing to do with the article I posted.

[Fumesucker]

104. The title of your OP.. "Medical Marijuana: are we ready?"

Yes, we are ready because of what I posted, cannabis is a far less dangerous and addictive drug than alcohol, which is totally legal for adults.

Your question in the title of the OP has been answered, yes we are ready because there is a much more dangerous and addictive drug readily and legally available to all adults.

There is no credible reason for keeping cannabis illegal for adults, either for the purpose of medicine or the purpose of recreation.

[HuckleB]

114. In other words, you are going down another road, and ignoring everything this piece covers.

Why bother responding at all?

[Fumesucker]

118. What is the point of further research to try and prove cannabis "dangerous"?

It certainly isn't risk free, but the risks are far less than with alcohol, already fully legal for all adults (over 21) in the USA.

I bother responding because your agenda is quite obvious and I'm opposed to it.

[HuckleB]

135. You are trying to give me an agenda.

If you had even read the piece linked in the OP, you would know that.

You are off on a tangent, and you have to address what the OP is actually about.

[Fumesucker]

160. You wrote the title to your OP, own your words..

I'm responding to your title, the rest of the OP is just there as cover for your agenda.

In my first post I admitted that cannabis may indeed be mildly addicting which is the point of what you linked to. I gave you that and then addressed your agenda which you revealed with the title of your OP.

You are the one being disingenuous, not me.

[HuckleB]

170. Thanks for proving that you still haven't read the article.

WOW!

[Fumesucker]

179. I'm not interested in the article..

I'm interested in your agenda, which you revealed to anyone used to deconstructing prohibitionist rhetoric with your blatant flamebait thread title.

You know damn well this is a highly politicized subject and yet you started your OP with a title guaranteed to draw political flak and then you feign surprise at the reception you get.

[HuckleB]

181. Ah, so you want to hijack the thread to serve your agenda.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Get a life.

[Fumesucker]

196. At least I'm honest enough to admit I have an agenda..

You have one too, but do not wish to admit it.

I found this little snippet of your OP interesting, since I've never ever heard this before.

The data is clear: marijuana discontinuation is associated with a withdrawal syndrome in many users, with some experts likening it in symptoms and severity to nicotine withdrawal.

Some people say that cannabis is as addictive as nicotine..

Bullshit and everyone with any experience reading this knows it.

Sounds like something they would say on Faux Nooz about a Democrat, some people say he's a child molester.

[HuckleB]

201. Even now, you are putting the words in the mouths of others.

Clearly, intellectual honesty is not something you care about.

[Fumesucker]

204. I quoted the fucking piece..

That is not "putting words in the mouths of others"..

I'm characterizing what they said, not misquoting them.

[HuckleB]

206. And then you restated it to serve your own imagination.

Sheesh.

[Fumesucker]

208. How do "some experts say" and "some people say" significantly differ?

[HuckleB]

209. That's not what I'm talking about.

And I suspect that you know it.

[Fumesucker]

213. I simply characterized the bit I quoted from your OP..

And I don't think I was far off, it was a "some people say" sort of quote and you know it.

[HuckleB]

215. You completely reframed the intent of the author.

Now, I'm done with your dishonest BS, at least for now.

[Fumesucker]

223. I've pw3nd you twice now already with your own words..

I'll bet you're done.

And the "some experts say" means that a very few or maybe only one have an extreme, almost certainly politically biased, opinion so that's the opinion they reference.

It's almost impossible to avoid political bias when discussing cannabis, as I think you're starting to see.

[HuckleB]

226. In regard to a couple of distractions, sure.

However, you've made a fool of yourself repeatedly by trying to put words into my mouth, and trying to put meaning in places that it doesn't exist.

You have completely failed to address any content of meaning whatsoever.

So try again.

[Fumesucker]

228. In relation to concepts that were in your very own OP..

That you claimed I had not read.

[HuckleB]

230. You hadn't read it, for quite some time.

And you hadn't read the article.

And you are still not able to get to what's important in a topic.

Is this something that you always struggle with?

[Fumesucker]

235. I know what's important..

What's important is that the snippet I quoted in your OP used a common rhetorical trick to try and demonize cannabis.

"Some experts say that global climate change is a lie".

Yes, some "experts" say that, for some values of "expert".

[HuckleB]

236. Sure you do.

[Fumesucker]

240. Why post a supposed scientific article that uses rhetorical tricks worthy of Faux Nooz?

You never even noticed the slimy ass trick until I pointed it out.

[HuckleB]

241. I didn't.

Try again.

[Fumesucker]

243. Didn't what? Notice the rhetorical trick?

Or post the article with the trick?

[HuckleB]

245. I've pointed out plenty of your rhetorical tricks.

And all you're doing now is offering a cop out. You painted yourself into a corner, and you can't get out.

[Fumesucker]

246. You posted a supposed scientific article with a rhetorical trick in the first few sentences..

And didn't notice it and now you want to tell everyone how alert you are to rhetorical tricks.

"Some experts say the Earth is only 6,000 years old".

"Some experts say vaccinations cause autism".

"Some experts say man was created by God exactly as he is".

All those statements have every bit as much credibility as the one in your OP.

[HuckleB]

255. Actually, I did not.

You can make that claim all you want. It doesn't change a thing.

[Fumesucker]

258. You didn't post that?

:rofl:

"Some experts say that Obama is not a native born American citizen".

[HuckleB]

263. I certainly didn't post that.

You can choose to ignore the studies that support the assertions of "some," or you can join an intellectually honest discussion.

You can't do both.

[Fumesucker]

265. An honest paper would have cited the experts in question..

And I know that you know it.

[HuckleB]

267. It did.

[Fumesucker]

291. You're right..

Drug Monkey, now that's an unbiased source..

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

292. In other words, because you don't have any reference for it, you simply laugh it off.

Thus, you take in no new information.

That's one way to get through life.

[Fumesucker]

387. I consider the biases of sources when evaluating information..

Different sources have different biases and some biases are stronger than others.

A source called "Drug Monkey" is clearly biased and almost certainly very strongly biased.

When a clearly biased source conflicts strongly with my own extensive personal experience it leads me to distrust and discount that source.

[HuckleB]

395. You sure do.

If the sources agree with your preconceived notions, you love 'em.

If they challenge you to think, you make excuses.

You've made that very clear. You are the king of excuse making.

[Fumesucker]

397. I regularly read and post in the DU science forum, do you?

I put links to some of my posts in another reply on this thread.

[HuckleB]

401. So what?

[Fumesucker]

403. I wouldn't read and post there if I was not interested in science..

Which you are clearly not, all you are interested in is shit stirring, which you have done a masterful job of with this OP.

[HuckleB]

406. You might have yourself convinced of that.

But your inane excuse making on this board shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity.

[Fumesucker]

408. I'm far from the only one on this thread to have figured out your agenda..

Oh stirrer of shit.

[HuckleB]

416. Yes, you and the other fundies have decided to think for me.

I got that a long time ago.

[montanto]

249. Well said. I can vouch for all of those

alcohol withdrawal symptoms but death. Second thought, I don't recall any euphoria either. I can't even begin to describe the kind of hell serious alcohol withdrawals are. Caffeine withdrawals are more serious than MJ withdrawals. I can quit MJ any time I want, which I could never have said for alcohol.

[mdmc]

42. The corporations will tell us when we are ready..

Watch the GOP - when we see the GOP out to tax and regulate, you will know that we have arrived..

[HuckleB]

46. THE CORPORATIONS, MAN!

Come on. You didn't even read the stories that were posted.

[mdmc]

58. busted!

I did not read the story.. But will now.. It looks like a good find and worth reading..
lol
the corporations , man!

peace and low stress my friend..

[mdmc]

64. I gave it a read..

good stuff, all in all..

[HuckleB]

71. Thanks, man.

Cheers!

[mdmc]

110. cheers

I didn't see anything in it that would suggest if America is ready for med.pot.
I do think that pot will be legal one day, for medical and recreational use.
I do think that the GOP will lead this charge and leave the dems holding the drug war like "what?"

[HuckleB]

132. Interesting.

I completely agree with your first two sentences. I haven't thought much about your conclusion in the third, or even thought about who would finally lead us to a common sense ending on the issue. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on why you think the GOP will be the leader, in the end.

[mdmc]

197. They need to rebrand themselves in a big way my friend

They are trying to bring back Raygun alla Sarah Palin while there is this whole anti-corporation, anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-government teabag party (Taxed Enough Already) looking for a Ron Paul or a Jessie Ventura to lead them back to power.

The GOP might make some gains next year. They will lose in 2012. The only way back is through the libertarian wing of the party.

The GOP could support legalization / tax & regulate pot / use the money for strict law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts.. all the while promoting individual liberty and the right to pursue happiness.

They might come back on their own due to lame ass democratic party leadership. But I really think the GOP has to remake their image.

First remake will be Sarah Palin invoking Ronald Raygun (the worst president of my lifetime).
The second remake, imho, will be a libertarian remake. It might work :shrug:

[HuckleB]

200. It's certainly possible, especially when one considers the demographic changes...

...that may occur over time.

[old mark]

48. I smoked pot for fun for about 20 years, and stopped with no problem at all

because I wanted to. I stopped drinking alcohol, with some dificulty, but nothing terrible, almost 22 years ago. I stopped smoking cigarettes with great difficulty and withdrawal problems, physical and mental and emotional, nearly 20 years ago.

By far, tobacco ws the most difficult addiction I ever quit. Pot wasn't any problem at all.



mark

[rucky]

49. All the more reason to make it available by prescription.

as with other potentially addictive medications.

[FatDave]

62. I used to smoke pot when I could afford it.

And when I could afford it, I smoked a lot. Like all day, work permitting (I worked from home). If I ran out and couldn't justify the expense, I gave it up for a few weeks until I could. No problem. Sure, I didn't want to have to do it, and I missed it, but it was not too big a deal. Haven't had a toke since late 2007, because that's about the time my career went in the shitter.

Cigarettes, I smoked those even when I couldn't afford it. Never resorted to stealing them, but I came close. I was not above rolling my own from butts, which of course tasted terrible. One day, as I drove home from work (on-site contract this time) choking down a Camel Light while I had full blown bronchitis, I decided I wanted to live to see my kids grow up and that it was time to quit. It was fucking hard, and there were times when I shook like a crack baby, especially at night. In February I will have been off of nicotine for 4 years. I still dream about smoking at least once a week. Had one just last night in fact. But it's getting a little less regular. It was nightly for the first 2 years. And of course, this was the time that was sucessful. There were plenty of failed attempts. The ramp downs, that always ramped back up. All the times I made it one day only to give in on day 2. And all the times I made it about 4 hours.

Now I'm attempting to change careers from a programmer to a truck driver. Sounds crazy, but you should try to make a living as a programmer these days. Anyway, I went to driving school, got my class A CDL, and start training with a company in December. This means I can basically never smoke weed again, because go figure, they test truck drivers pretty regularly. It's a drag, and I think it's bullshit that I could be fired for something I did on my days off (I would never even drive a car high, let alone a truck), but I'm willing to make that sacrifice. Because weed is nice when you can have it, but you never really need it. With cigarettes, you will be sick when you quit.

Bottom line, cannabis is nowhere near as addictive as nicotine. Not. Even. Close.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. This is psuedo babble.

If this is science, the opinion of the author that 'no condition is exempt from" claimed benefits needs to be cited. I challenge the accuracy of that statement.
And the idea that marijuana is physically addicting and ceasing use leads to withdrawal symptoms is simply absurd, and millions of people for thousands of years have known this. Laughable, pretentious, prejudiced and far too opinionated to be anything like impartial inquiry.

[HuckleB]

72. Your post is pseudo-science babble.

You are simply choosing to claim that actual science isn't science.

Leave your preconceived notions at the door, and try again.

[mitchtv]

85. +1

"Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope!". I quit all the time when I run out no problema

[HuckleB]

87. "I quit all the time."

ROTFLMAO!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

65. Your Source Article is Garbage

Do a bit of actual research and you might learn something. The ignorance on display in your post is profound and disturbing.

[HuckleB]

73. Baloney.

My source is far more viable than anything your research has offered.

I guarantee it.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

122. your guarantee is worthless, sorry

Your article is garbage and is easily refutable. Anyone with five minutes to conduct real research can find evidence that proves it to be worthless.

Everyone should do their own research and make up their own minds: don't listen to this bozo.

[HuckleB]

153. Tell me what you would want to refute in the article.

And then prove your refutation, showing that you understand what we know about the brain in 2009.

[4lbs]

66. I dunno. I think I'll need to "beta-test" medical marijuana for 6 months to be sure.

:D

[asdjrocky]

68. Withdrawal is such a silly notion.

Try kicking heroin or prescription meds, now that's a withdrawal. When words like that are thrown around concerning pot it smells like reefer madness.

[HuckleB]

74. Try coming into the 21st century.

Your offering a post that comes from a knowledge base that's 20 or more years old.

[asdjrocky]

79. Keep telling yourself that bucko.

You assume a lot.

[HuckleB]

80. I'm not the one who is making assumptions.

Your response to an article about the science of marijuana made some big assumptions. Assumptions that are falling by the wayside.

[Flaneur]

191. This is where you're mistaken.

And the poster you were responding to has a point. I would posit that marijuana use can be mildly physically addictive. But the withdrawal syndrome from it is so mild as to make talk of "addiction" to it seem silly. Detoxing from pot is about as rigorous as detoxing from caffeine.

All your neurobiopharmacology aside, all addictions are not equal. Compare the crack smoker's compulsion to score to that of the pot-smoker's. Crack head is giving blowjobs in the alley for that next rock; pot head is waiting until he gets paid.

You might do better talking about dependency...

[HuckleB]

198. Again, I'm not mistaken about the changes in our understanding of addiction, the brain & plasticity.

Knee-jerk responses that herald a 20-year-old understanding of these processes do nothing but divert from the actual topic.

[Flaneur]

242. A knee-jerk response? Please, that seems all you're capable of.

I wrote that marijuana is probably mildly addictive. Do you disagree?

I wrote that its withdrawal syndrome is not very severe. Do you disagree?

I read the article you posted. I could pick at it, but it's not an unreasonable piece. Although the author does seem to be unaware of lots of the recent research into pot's medicinal uses. I disagree with the author's conclusions about when and whether it is appropriate to prescribe (or recommend) marijuana, but so do a lot of other doctors.

What's your point?

Also, "addiction is a chronic relapsing disease" is a model, not a fact. It's one of several competing models. See Gene Heyman, "Addiction: A Disorder of Choice (2009, Harvard University Press) for another model.

[HuckleB]

244. Blah. Blah. Blah.

You added nothing to the discussion. Yes, it was a knee-jerk response. My asking for something more from other posters does not match that.

And if you want to go off on models, we probably need to start a new thread. That may be interesting, but this thread is done, IMO.

[Flaneur]

248. I'm done wasting my time on you. You fail to respond to anything.

You really ought to look in the mirror when accusing others of not responding to the discussion, because it certainly seems you are not interested in responding in any substantive manner. You accuse everyone of not reading the article. I read the article and commented on it, and all you could come up with is "blah blah blah"?

Okay, I'm a sucker: Okay, marijuana may be mildly addictive. So what? What's your point?

[HuckleB]

256. I fail to respond to anything?

Sorry if I'm tired of the red herring BS that's been offered by you and others on this board.

Not one of you has addressed the actual heart of what I posted. NOT ONE.

[Flaneur]

269. Self-delete. Not worth the waste of time.

[HuckleB]

271. You're right.

When you choose to respond with knee-jerk distraction, it's not worth your time. I'm glad you figured that out.

[snort]

339. Halfway through this

thread and I gotta ask: who is it you are working for?

[HuckleB]

344. You gotta ask?

Why because you haven't actually paid attention to the thread, or to the piece that started the thread?

Because if you had actually done that, you wouldn't be pulling that line of BS.

[snort]

361. Same reply.

I'm being a knee jerk non-reading OP ignoring science slacker. You've spent hours getting your ass kicked over this post. Either you love your post very well or you have an agenda. So I was just asking.

[HuckleB]

362. Hardly.

I've spent hours asking people to back up their claims, and to try to stop going off on pointless tangents. That does not equal getting my ass kicked.

And you can pretend that I have an agenda, all you want. But, again, that's your imagination. You can do what you want with your imagination. And clearly you like to create fake enemies.

[snort]

366. You've been asking people to back up

their claims? What claims? It was your post. You're my enemy now? That is very exciting. Good thing I'm wearing camo undies. Bye (mustn't fraternize).

[HuckleB]

367. Yawn.

At least you have your imagination going for you.

[Fly by night]

81. Almost nothing in this "science-based" synopsis is accurate

Take the first two sentences:

"Cannabis has been used recreationally and medically for centuries. Despite long experience, relatively little is known about the risks and benefits of its use as a medication."

Actually, references to medical cannabis first appeared in Chinese texts almost 5,000 years ago, not centuries ago. As for "relatively little" being known, there were over 2,100 articles published in the scientific literature in 2008 alone, and over 17,000 articles have appeared in the past four decades analyzing marijuana and its constituents.

As for cannabis withdrawal being similar to nicotine withdrawal, that's like saying that a fly is similar to an elephant. Most cannabis users can discontinue cannabis use with only minor discomfort. (As for me, the only withdrawal symptom I experience is difficulty falling asleep for a few days -- nothing else). Most tobacco smokers are in physical distress for weeks (or even months) after quitting, which is why almost all are back on nicotine before three months has elapsed. Research among multi-drug experienced populations (including prisoners) indicates that nicotine withdrawal is ranked as more uncomfortable (and more difficult) than heroin withdrawal. Cannabis withdrawal hardly rates a mention in the same research.

As for medical cannabis having only palliative effects, I wish the people who keep posting that here on DU would take the time to actually read some of the links provided to educate them to the much broader (and important) roles that cannabis plays. For example, research has indicated that as-yet-unknown components in cannabis have served as potent chemotherapeutic agents (in vitro) in at least six cancer cell lines. Here's a well-sourced link to that research:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/what-your-government-know_b_108712.html

In addition, research is showing promising results for cannabinoids' capacity to moderate autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis (20), rheumatoid arthritis (7) and inflammatory bowel disease (13) as well as their neuroprotective effects in retarding the progression of Alzheimer's disease (9) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's Disease) (11). These diseases are a handful of those covered in "Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids", a publication available on the NORML website that covers medical journal articles published just since 2000. (The numbers following each disease reflect the number of peer-reviewed references available for each condition in that monograph.) You can find this publication at

www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

If anyone here really is interested in what we know about medical cannabis, I would recommend that you visit this old DU thread: "The Inconvenient Truths About Medical Marijuana -- Five Easy References"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5043299

Anyone who believes that the article referenced in the OP is either science-based or thoughtful hasn't read much of the medical cannabis literature. Visit the links provided in this response and you'll have some basis for comparison.

[HuckleB]

82. Gee, thanks for the pseudo-science references.

And it all started with an argument about "centuries vs. thousands of years."

Dude. That's the classic distraction sign that one is about be handed the usual nonsense.

You don't want to deal with science. That's fine.

Don't pretend the crap your pushing is science.

Thank you.

[Fly by night]

84. DingleB, I'm glad you know how to spell "pseudo-science".

That appears to be about the only thing you know.

If you had bothered to read any of the links I provided, you would know they include the most comprehensive review of medical cannabis conducted in recent years in this country by the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Science), of which I am a proud member.

I would also recommend the recent reports by the Academy of Family Physicians (which recommended that cannabis be reclassified from Schedule 1) and the forthcoming report by the American Medical Association (which makes the same recommendation), a report that I was honored to receive an advance copy of.

Pseudo-science? Looks more like pseudo-intellectual, knee-jerk responses of yours smeared all over this thread to me. If you can't take the time to actually read the science provided to you, stay out of the laboratory (and out of medical practice) and leave discussions about the future of medical cannabis to the grown-ups. 'K?

[HuckleB]

86. Now that's funny.

Do you really think that because your authors referenced that research that they therefore are correct in all of their assumptions.

You responded to a piece that I doubt you read at all. Quite frankly, I highly suspect that you are misrepresenting yourself, as well.

I mean, dude, you posted HuffPo (known to be ludicrously anti-science, oh and the piece is written by a normal executive) and NORML references.

Seriously?

[Fly by night]

88. DingleB, I'll show you my resume if you'll show me yours.

PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you post-haste.

I've got nothing to lose. How about you?

BTW, you've been around here long enough to know where the "spell check" button is, don't you?
Of course, that won't help you with your continual misuse of "your" when you mean "you're."

But hey, that appears to be the least of your problems.

I'll wait for your PM. As for now, I've had enough of your BM.

PS: As for my posting a Huffington Post article. it's clear that you haven't bothered to read the article as it includes links to over 20 peer-reviewed medical journal articles. As for the NORML monograph (which I helped edit as an outside expert reviewer), it includes almost 200 peer-reviewed medical journal article references.

You're showing your lack of education and sophistication (and growing desperation) with every new post. (Or maybe I should say "Your showing ...." so you'll understand me.)

[HuckleB]

89. I don't play those games.

You can fake a resume just as well as you can pretend as you post.

I suspect I've been around DU much longer than you, BTW.

You showed me that you don't give a rip about science by the sources you offered, and by the lame response to what I posted.

If you cared about science, you wouldn't need the BS name calling, or the juvenile BS about spelling, and you would have offered an actual response.

You didn't.

You've shown yourself to have no character whatsoever.

I know all I need to know about you, and I certainly don't want you to know anything personal about me.

[Fly by night]

91. DingleB, I'll just bet you don't. Now which one of us has something to hide.

The best way to put me out of your misery is to just "ignore" you.

Thank the Goddess (and DU) for the privilege of being free from the uninformed mumbles of strangers like yourself. If you had ever bothered to participate in civilized cannabis-related discussions here at any time over the past five years, you would very well know who I am. I am clueless as to who you are, but that seems fitting, now doesn't it.

One last point: you may have noticed that no one else seems to want to play in your sand-box (or is this a cat-box) anymore. I was late to this party (sic) but I can now see why.

Knowledge is power.

"Ignore"ance is bliss.

[HuckleB]

92. Well, then put yourself on ignore.

You've offered up ignorance and personal attacks.

If that's all you got, well...

Knowledge is power. But propaganda is destruction. You offered propaganda. I offered science.

I know what road you choose.

And I know that you didn't even read the article before you posted.

Read it, and you'll know why I know that.

[Fly by night]

94. You do know what "ignore" means, don't you, DingleB?

Thankfully, I can't hear you anymore. Were your last two posts directed at me more pseudo-science? Inquiring minds want to know. (Or not).

Go right on talking to yourself. It does appear that no one else (including me) is listening anymore.

[HuckleB]

96. LOL!

You are a funny one. Angry, but funny. Thanks for the laughs.

[MH1]

317. Hate to kick this thread, but you are attacking someone who actually knows what he's talking about

Fly is well respected here. You, after this post and your response attacking anyone who fails to bow to your enlightened knowledge, I'm guessing not so much.

It's not so much what you posted as your defensive, attack-the-poster responses to the discussion.

[HuckleB]

333. Respected by who?

The goons who sport NORML fundamentalism as their religion, much like he did? By people who can't be honest enough to look at the full story about anything that they hold much to dear?

Sorry, but that guy deserves no respect from anyone. He attacked me. Not the other way around.

Seriously, if you can't see that, you need glasses of a whole new kind. And you really need to think about who deserves respect. That dude ain't one of 'em.

Anyone who tries to push himself as an expert from the word go should be questioned extensively, BTW.

[Greyhound]

107. Apparently those 17,000 articles don't count, nor does any research conducted

outside the United States, nor does any research not funded by DEA in the United States.

But the one that starts from the premise that pot is addictive, now, that's science!
:eyes:

These guys...
:rofl:

[HuckleB]

112. I like how you list big numbers, but nothing specific.

That's the same that anti-vaccine folks offer up.

[Greyhound]

320. The volume of data out there is simply too large for anyone to miss it unless

they (you) purposely refuse to see it.

So what is gained from posting another hundred links to papers and articles you won't read?

All of which ignores the basic truth that prohibition has never, doesn't, and will never work.

[HuckleB]

334. In other words, keep talking about the volume.

But never ever get to what it really means.

Do you always the same game?

Sheesh.

[Greyhound]

429. Not in any words whatsoever. You've purposely misstated what I wrote,

just as expected. You guys aren't even trying anymore, the disinformation campaigns of previous years at least had some entertainment value, now you've nothing but the FauxNews Big Lie playbook.

It's really kind of sad.

You sure you don't want to revive the "men grow breasts" fable again, I always liked that one.

[HuckleB]

430. No, I haven't.

You've written nothing. What you've posted has not actual content or meaning. It's just games.

[Greyhound]

433. Oh c'mon, POT MAKES MEN GROW BOOBIES!1!! THERE HUGH!11! n/t

[HuckleB]

437. Who's Hugh 11?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

134. But, But....what about "Reefer Madness"??????

Don't you know that Devil Weed makes white women sleep with jazz musicians and Mexican immigrants??? I know it's true 'cuz Harry Anslinger and Dick Nixon told me so!

[HuckleB]

137. And that old tune has what to do with the main points of the OP?

[davidpdx]

90. I have no problem with medical marijuana

Voted for it twice in Oregon and it was the first state to legalize it. I hope more states follow Oregon's lead. As for total legalization, I'm skeptical and always have been.

[Le Taz Hot]

93. Really?

"This is probably the most science-based and most thoughtful piece that I have come across on this matter. A very good read, IMO."

I understand this doesn't fit your agenda, but, since you seem to be so interested in science:

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

[HuckleB]

95. I'm not the one with the agenda.

If you're going to post sites that have a clear agenda, maybe you should refrain from telling other people that they have an agenda.

Clearly, you didn't even read the piece.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Here's the difference, Ace.

I'm right up front about my agenda and, despite the whole, "Who me" bullshit you're trying to pull off here, you gave yourself away with your subsequent posts.

Now, speaking of READING the articles, I posted a link with SEVERAL articles which, if you had ACTUALLY read all of them, would have taken you 2-3 hours. But then again, it's hard science so perhaps it had too many polysyllabic words for you. :eyes: :smoke:

[HuckleB]

98. Newsflash.

I've spent more than enough time on those sites.

You didn't even read the one article I posted, as your response makes clear.

None of my responses make my agenda clear, unless your making huge leaps of assumption.

Of course, if you had read the piece I posted in the first place...

Sheesh.

[Le Taz Hot]

100. "I've spent more than enough time on those sites."

So you've read all those links. Every singe one of them and understand them all. Mmmhmmmm. And I'm guessing you're an ace fighter pilot and a double-naught spy in your spare time too, aren't ya there, fella?

[HuckleB]

102. Are you going to pretend that you've read every word of every study done on marijuana?

Newsflash: You still haven't read the article I posted.

I've been down this road ad nauseum, over the years. I check on medical studies of all kinds on a daily basis. You aren't even responding to the article I posted. You're responding to something you created in your own mind.

[HuckleB]

99. Interesting.

The piece is not anti-marijuana. It's simply pro-science.

But somehow the knee-jerk responses come out, anyway.

And why should I take anyone seriously if they're going to refer to me as "bucko," "ace" and "DingleB," and that's just the beginning of the crap personal attacks?

One dude goes to the old "PM me, let's share resumes" routine. Sorry, but I'm not that gullible.

I think marijuana should be legal, with regulation similar to liquor. But when I get responses like this from pro-marijuans folks, I start to wonder.

[Le Taz Hot]

101. Somebody call this child a

WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHmbulance.

[HuckleB]

103. Awwwwwwwwwwwww.

So sorry to hurt your red herring feelings.

Try refraining from BS assumptions and BS attacks. You might actually learn something about the world.

[anigbrowl]

106. You know, you and another poster are the ones using childish tactics like name calling

Some of the behavior in this thread from people who don't like the OP has been pretty pathetic...pot fundamentalists are just as annoying as the religious variety. By fundamentalist I mean someone for whom pot policy is a matter of dogma rather than of principle. I'm pro-legalization, I'm looking at the possibility of running a pot club or similar, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's people who can't deal with an objective viewpoint on their favorite thing.

[Fumesucker]

108. The objective viewpoint is that a far more dangerous and addictive drug is already fully legal

For adults.

No other studies need to be done to establish that cannabis is far less dangerous and far less addictive than alcohol, it's as near a scientific certainty as exists in the world today.

Therefore any "concerns" over the dangers or addictive potential of cannabis are moot, we already know that there is a fully legal drug out there that is much worse.

And don't get me started on tobacco and nicotine, which is apparently even more addictive than alcohol and also fully legal for adults.

[HuckleB]

129. That's not even the topic of the OP!

Hello?

[Fumesucker]

It's called "thread drift"

And it's quite common on da' tubez..

Get used to it.

[HuckleB]

171. There is a difference between thread drift, and failing to address the topic of thread whatsoever.

Try again.

[Fumesucker]

177. I have addressed your thread title repeatedly..

And you have repeatedly failed to respond in a forthright manner.

Now if you had some *other* point than trying to further demonize cannabis, I haven't seen it.

[HuckleB]

178. Now that's complete BS.

You haven't even read the article in the OP.

[Fumesucker]

183. So what?

I haven't read it and I'm not going to, I'm far more interested in your motivations for posting a politically provocative title and then feigning innocence when people respond in the manner you intended.

[HuckleB]

184. So you've ranted and raved about something that exists only in your mind.

Hello? Seriously. You have no idea how funny this is.

[Fumesucker]

186. Why did you choose the title for your OP then?

It was very nearly the only words of your own in the OP, clearly you meant something by it.

[HuckleB]

188. Maybe you should read the article.

Maybe then you'll find out the origins of the title.

:eyes:

[Fumesucker]

192. Why won't you *tell* us what you meant by it?

You want us to think I'm misconstruing your intentions with the title but will not tell us what those intentions were.

I've deconstructed enough prohibitionist rhetoric, both blatant and subtle to know it when I read it.

[HuckleB]

193. Read the article.

[Fumesucker]

202. Tell us what you meant..

[HuckleB]

203. I meant to post an article to start an honest, thoughtful discussion.

I posted the title of the article as the title of the OP.

You still haven't read the OP, because you'd rather talk about another topic altogether.

[Fumesucker]

207. I have indeed read the OP, I even quoted some of it back at you..

[HuckleB]

211. You only quoted back part of what I posted at DU.

If you had read the OP, the title issue would have been mute a long time ago.

You don't take responsibility for your own behavior, do you?

[Fumesucker]

218. OP *means* "original post"

It does *not* mean "the article I linked to".

You are not one who is precise with language are you?

[HuckleB]

220. I'm not one who spends time playing games like that, no.

I'd rather get to the heart of the matter.

You seem to do nothing but offer distractions.

Bye.

[Fumesucker]

224. Buh bye..

:hi:

[tkmorris]

109. If the OP had POSTED an objective viewpoint

You'd have a point. But... you don't.

[HuckleB]

115. It's far more objective than the multitude of knee-jerk responses to it.

Exactly what in the piece is incredibly subjective, anyway?

[HuckleB]

116. I'm actually becoming quite disenchanted with DU.

There seems to be a big contingent that doesn't give a rip about science, and that refuses to take a look at new information. That doesn't seem very liberal or progressive to me.

[Fumesucker]

120. No, you are becoming disenchanted.

Because there are a lot of people here who see through you and your agenda and do not buy it.

Now if you had titled your OP in a little less inflammatory manner I might be inclined to be more charitable, but you didn't and that is that.

[HuckleB]

123. "My agenda."

So you're saying that there are a lot of people here whose paranoia keeps them from having intellectually honest discussion.

Got it.

You're trying to give me an agenda. That's the most dishonest discussion tactic around.

[Fumesucker]

158. You wrote the title to your OP, not me..

You made it quite clear that you don't think we are ready for Medical Marijuana, otherwise you would have not put it the way you did.

The only way I have to judge you is by your words and your words reveal your agenda.

And yes, I have an agenda too, everyone does.

[HuckleB]

159. The title of the OP hardly does what you say it does.

You made assumptions. Now try taking responsibility for failing to think before you respond.

[Fumesucker]

161. Of course I made assumptions, everyone does all the time. Yourself included..

You assumed that no one would detect your agenda while you made it glaringly obvious to anyone who can see through your bullshit.

Governments around the world have spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars trying to demonize cannabis, it is a very old game and a lot of us are weary of that game and those who would play it.

Address the incontrovertible fact that alcohol is far more addictive and dangerous than cannabis and yet legal for all adults in the USA while cannabis remains illegal or just go away.

[HuckleB]

162. You're still trying to give me an agenda!

WOW!

You still haven't read the original either, have you?

[Fumesucker]

163. Every single person on this planet, cretins and infants aside, has an agenda..

That you are trying to conceal the fact you have an agenda shows your dishonesty.

Now, address the ironclad and incontrovertible fact that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug of abuse than cannabis and yet legal for all adults in the USA, even those already addicted, or just shut up and slink away.

[HuckleB]

165. I'm not concealing anything.

What you're doing is quite despicable, however.

[Fumesucker]

167. I admit I have an agenda..

You refuse to admit the same and yet you obviously revealed the nature of your agenda with the title of your OP.

That is what is despicable.

[HuckleB]

168. So what is your agenda?

I wanted to have a discussion, with intellectual honesty, based on actual science. That's my agenda here. God forbid that some people might actually be curious about the world, and want to continue to question various assumptions. Of course, the line you're offering still indicates that you haven't read the piece, and that you haven't read other responses by me on this thread.

Your routine is ludicrous. Stop making excuses.

[Fumesucker]

173. My agenda is to see the drug war end.. Completely.

Now stop lying about your agenda, the flamebait title of your OP made it quite clear that you have not yet revealed your true agenda.

[HuckleB]

175. I'm not lying.

And you still haven't bothered to read the article I posted.

Amazing.

[Fumesucker]

180. Then why did you choose such a politically charged title?

I don't think you are nearly as politically naive as you would like us to believe.

[HuckleB]

182. At this point, I can only laugh at your BS.

[Fumesucker]

185. If you would address my points forthrightly we could get past this point..

But since you refuse to do so then we shall remain stuck at this impasse.

You refuse to even acknowledge that alcohol is far more dangerous and addictive than cannabis and yet legal for all adults in the USA. That one scientifically incontrovertible fact makes your thread title complete and utter bullshit.

Keep in mind there are others here watching you bob and weave trying to evade my points while twisting in the wind.

[HuckleB]

187. You haven't made any points.

And you haven't addressed the original article at all. That's what this thread is supposed to be about. All you've done is attempt to put words at my fingertips and give me an agenda. I am not your toy to give an agenda to. Until you figure that out, and until you actually offer anything other than that, your "points" are nothing but diversions.

PS -- No one is arguing that alcohol isn't addictive or dangerous. No one is talking about prescribing it for patients, either.

[Fumesucker]

189. But patients can go out and consume alcohol at their whim..

If they feel that it would be beneficial to either their physical or mental state.

Why can people not do the same with cannabis?

There is no need to "prescribe" cannabis any more than there is to "prescribe" a Budweiser.

As I said, everyone has an agenda and yours is quite obvious to anyone used to deconstructing prohibitionist rhetoric.

[HuckleB]

190. Again, that's not the subject of the article.

If you want to talk about general legalization (something I am for, which you would know if you had read much at all on this thread), start your own thread. I am not here to go down that road, however.

[Fumesucker]

194. Then why start with a title guaranteed to get a politicized reaction to your OP?

And then feign surprise at a politicized reaction to it?

The little snippet you posted was quite negative, clearly that was what you wanted people to take away from your post.

[HuckleB]

195. It's quite a benign title, actually.

And the snippet is hardly negative. Further, it's just the beginning of the article.

It's clear that you can't take responsibility for your knee-jerk responses. You want to blame others because you made assumptions based on a title, and you failed to look any further.

As I've noted, that's despicable.

BTW, do you always respond merely to your initial response to the title of a thread?

[Fumesucker]

199. This bit is not negative?

The data is clear: marijuana discontinuation is associated with a withdrawal syndrome in many users, with some experts likening it in symptoms and severity to nicotine withdrawal.

[HuckleB]

205. Are you going to pretend that there are no side effects for anyone?

Really?

[Fumesucker]

210. According to what your OP says there are no side effects..

Or did you not read it?

ETA the quote: As with any pharmacologically active substance, there are no “side effects”, only effects which we desire and those we do not.

[HuckleB]

212. Yes, that's the technicality of language.

Nice catch.

Is that all you have to offer?

[Fumesucker]

214. I already grok your OP better than you do

After you told me I hadn't read it.

[HuckleB]

217. Congratulations!

Of course, by continuing down this road, you show that you don't understand the full meaning of what you quoted, much less anything else.

[Fumesucker]

227. You were the one who used the term "side effects"..

When in your very OP it said there were no such things as "side effects".

I'm just a more acute reader and more precise user of language than you.

Despite the fact that I'm a very long term stoner.

[HuckleB]

229. Yup.

And you keep kicking a dead horse, instead of addressing something of meaning.

That tells me that you aren't ready to discuss anything with intellectual honesty.

[Fumesucker]

232. You are the one being intellectually dishonest..

For instance you still won't disclose why you chose a politically provocative title for your OP despite repeated requests.

And you won't acknowledge that at least one of the snippets you posted in your OP used a common rhetorical trick to make cannabis look worse than it actually is. "Some experts say" that global climate change is a lie.

Which is why I think you have a hidden agenda.

[HuckleB]

234. I've already explained the title.

So we'll chock that up to pure dishonesty on your part.

[Fumesucker]

237. Not that I've noticed..

And the rhetorical trick in the snippet you posted in your OP made the rest of the article worthless, it can't be trusted to honestly put forth the facts.

[HuckleB]

239. Now there's a cop out, if I've ever seen one.

:rofl:

[Sub Atomic]

121. It's nonsense like yours that makes me wonder who is financially backing this "study".

If you want to know why marijuana is the pariah it is today, educate yourself.

http://www.encod.org/info/HOW-MARIJUANA-WAS-PROHIBITED.html

[HuckleB]

125. I know all of that.

And that has nothing to do with the piece I published.

What is the knee-jerk nonsense?

Can't anyone actually discuss the actual piece?

[Christa]

124. K & R nt

[DFW]

127. I'm not ready

I don't smoke, and the couple of times I tried marijuana, I nearly choked to death.

[HuckleB]

131. No medication matches up with everyone.

That doesn't mean that marijuana won't help others.

[krabigirl]

297. you don't have to use it, and even if ppl do, they don't have to smoke...

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

128. Even the DEA Knows Your Info is Crap on a Stick

In 1988, following an extended legal battle, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled on a petition to reschedule marijuana. The full text of his findings is available at the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Here is some of what he said:



OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDING OF FACT,
CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION
by FRANCIS L. YOUNG, DEA Administrative Law Judge



1. Richard J. Gralla, MD, an oncologist and Professor of Medicine who was an Agency witness, accepts that in treating cancer patients, oncologists can use the cannabinoids with safety despite their side effects.

2. Andrew T. Weil, MD, who now practices medicine in Tucson, Arizona and is on the faculty of the College of Medicine, University of Arizona, was a member of the first team of researchers to perform a Federal Government-authorized study into the effects of marijuana on human subjects. This team made its study in 1968. These researchers determined that marijuana could be used safely under medical supervision. In the twenty years since then, Dr. Weil has seen no information that would cause him to reconsider that conclusion. There is no question in his mind that marijuana is safe for use under appropriate medical supervision.

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effect. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have a toxic, potentially lethal effect, but marijuana is not such a substance. There is no known record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
(...)
7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage 50% of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug-induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman's terms, this means that in order to induce death, a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. A NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarette has approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death.

16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.

[HuckleB]

130. "In 1988..."

Thanks for the knee-jerk response. Your post has nothing to do with the real points of the piece I posted. Try reading before you respond.

Oh, and try to get some updated science.

[Romulox]

133. LOL at the "data that doesn't support my thesis is IRRELEVANT!" method of debate

It's a real faith based argument you mount. It hasn't convinced anybody of anything, but you seem to have rallied a few of the more rightwing posters around you.

5/10

[HuckleB]

136. Now that's funny.

You choose to ignore 20 years of brain science, and you are calling my argument faith based.

Try again.

Oh, and maybe you should read the original article I posted before you rant and rave again.

[Romulox]

138. How in the world would you know what I "chose to ignore"? Now you're Kreskin, too?

Jeese. A psychic AND a Drug Warrior?





???

[HuckleB]

139. The content of your post made that quite clear.

Any more pointless diversions to offer?

[Romulox]

141. Nonsense. All of your assumptions simply betray a less than rigorous thought process

:hi:

[HuckleB]

143. Thanks for the baseless generalization.

Have a good day.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

147. no, the poster is quite correct

Both your OP and subsequent follow-ups have, at best, lacked substance.

[HuckleB]

149. Only to someone who hasn't even bothered to read the OP.

To say the OP lacks substance, and then to respond to a phantom opponent, as you have done, is purely dishonest.

[Romulox]

148. LOL. A complete lack of irony and self-awareness, to boot!

You started out your exchange with me telling me what I "must" think, remember?

You are transparent. :hi:

[HuckleB]

150. And you keep building the phantom that you are arguing against.

Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

[Romulox]

154. This is the last kick you'll get from me for your little attention-mongering thread...

[HuckleB]

155. You sure gave it a lot of attention, despite failing to read the original article.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

142. You Are Brilliant

You DO know that the AMA has just asked to reschedule cannabis, right? do you know that cannabinoids have been proven to shrink cancerous tumors?

Seriously, dude, pull your head outta your ass and do a bit of research. Your intentional ignorance is appalling.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php
Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
Main Category: Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 15 Aug 2004 - 10:00 PDT


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/01/hscout625697.html
Explaining that the introduction of THC into the brain triggers a cellular self-digestion process known as "autophagy," study co-author Guillermo Velasco said his team has isolated the specific pathway by which this process unfolds, and noted that it appears "to kill cancer cells, while it does not affect normal cells."

Velasco is with the department of biochemistry and molecular biology in the School of Biology at Complutense University in Madrid. The findings were published in the April issue of The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

[HuckleB]

145. You do know that you are arguing against a phantom of your own imagination, don't you?

Seriously, pull your head out, indeed. (Suggestion: Read the actual piece that was posted originally.)

ROTFLMAO!

:nopity: :rofl:

[Romulox]

151. This guy is just looking for kicks. He's not going to engage with any facts.

"http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php
Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
Main Category: Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 15 Aug 2004 - 10:00 PDT


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/01/hscout625...
Explaining that the introduction of THC into the brain triggers a cellular self-digestion process known as "autophagy," study co-author Guillermo Velasco said his team has isolated the specific pathway by which this process unfolds, and noted that it appears "to kill cancer cells, while it does not affect normal cells.""

IRRELEVANT! :rofl:

[HuckleB]

152. I see you still haven't read the article in the OP.

Why do you continue to argue against a phantom?

BTW, I am :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I mean, seriously. How many times are you going to post without having read the original article.

WOW!

[HuckleB]

140. I see that we're now unreccing the piece as fast as possible.

I guess a piece that acknowledges medical benefits of marijuana, and that pushes for further clarification of the where, when, why, what and how of its medical use is perceived as being pro-prohibition.

The piece doesn't address legalization, in the general sense. That really isn't the author's point in writing the piece. And yet...

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

144. you intentionally misrepresent your own OP

Sad. Very sad.

[HuckleB]

146. Really?

Explain how I do that.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

156. Prescription Pain Killers & Anti-Depressants: Are We Ready?

http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/prescription-drug-deaths-surpass-fatal-auto-accidents-in-15-states.aspx?googleid=271936

It's been in the news - most recently with the death of Michael Jackson attributed to an overdose of prescrition drugs.

In Colorado and 15 other states, drugs now kill more people than auto accidents.

The reasons – driving is becoming safer and drugs, powerful painkillers, both legal and illegal, are becoming more commonplace.

For decades, auto accidents have led the nation in injury-related death. They are still number one overall, but drug overdoses are beginning to pull ahead in 15 states, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Read more: http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/prescription-drug-deaths-surpass-fatal-auto-accidents-in-15-states.aspx?googleid=271936#ixzz0XnO622Py

http://www.naturalnews.com/024765_drugs_DEA_prescription_drugs.html
Prescription Drugs Kill 300 Percent More Americans than Illegal Drugs
Monday, November 10, 2008 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A report by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission has concluded that prescription drugs have outstripped illegal drugs as a cause of death.

An analysis of 168,900 autopsies conducted in Florida in 2007 found that three times as many people were killed by legal drugs as by cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines put together. According to state law enforcement officials, this is a sign of a burgeoning prescription drug abuse problem.

"The abuse has reached epidemic proportions," said Lisa McElhaney, a sergeant in the pharmaceutical drug diversion unit of the Broward County Sheriff's Office. "It's just explosive."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237
Take the case of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard's Massachusetts General Hospital. Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose and none of which were approved for children below ten years of age.

Legally, physicians may use drugs that have already been approved for a particular purpose for any other purpose they choose, but such use should be based on good published scientific evidence. That seems not to be the case here. Biederman's own studies of the drugs he advocates to treat childhood bipolar disorder were, as The New York Times summarized the opinions of its expert sources, "so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive."<1>
(...)
Or consider Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg, chair of Stanford's psychiatry department and president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association. Senator Grassley found that Schatzberg controlled more than $6 million worth of stock in Corcept Therapeutics, a company he cofounded that is testing mifepristone—the abortion drug otherwise known as RU-486—as a treatment for psychotic depression. At the same time, Schatzberg was the principal investigator on a National Institute of Mental Health grant that included research on mifepristone for this use and he was coauthor of three papers on the subject. In a statement released in late June, Stanford professed to see nothing amiss in this arrangement, although a month later, the university's counsel announced that it was temporarily replacing Schatzberg as principal investigator "to eliminate any misunderstanding."

Perhaps the most egregious case exposed so far by Senator Grassley is that of Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, chair of Emory University's department of psychiatry and, along with Schatzberg, coeditor of the influential Textbook of Psychopharmacology.<2> Nemeroff was the principal investigator on a five-year $3.95 million National Institute of Mental Health grant—of which $1.35 million went to Emory for overhead—to study several drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline. To comply with university and government regulations, he was required to disclose to Emory income from GlaxoSmithKline, and Emory was required to report amounts over $10,000 per year to the National Institutes of Health, along with assurances that the conflict of interest would be managed or eliminated.

But according to Senator Grassley, who compared Emory's records with those from the company, Nemeroff failed to disclose approximately $500,000 he received from GlaxoSmithKline for giving dozens of talks promoting the company's drugs. In June 2004, a year into the grant, Emory conducted its own investigation of Nemeroff's activities, and found multiple violations of its policies. Nemeroff responded by assuring Emory in a memorandum, "In view of the NIMH/Emory/GSK grant, I shall limit my consulting to GSK to under $10,000/year and I have informed GSK of this policy." Yet that same year, he received $171,031 from the company, while he reported to Emory just $9,999—a dollar shy of the $10,000 threshold for reporting to the National Institutes of Health.

[HuckleB]

157. And one more red herring!!!!

Woo hoo!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

275. red herring my ass

Nice try but no: medical marijuana is being used to replace those very deadly prescription drugs. Marijuana has NEVER killed a single person through overdose. Never. The two are DIRECTLY COMPARABLE, which means you need to return to your Logic 101 textbook and find another dodge.

Again, this is no red herring: these drugs are legal and cause much more damage than marijuana ever could. You can cry "fish' all you like but it won't change the fact that you are wrong.

[HuckleB]

284. Baloney.

That's propaganda by you. It is possible that medical marijuana may be a better choice than other medications for some things and for some people. But, again, you are only showing that you refuse to discuss the issue in any form other than "marijuana good/marijuana save the world/oogaugh."

In other words, the red herring is still on your grill.

[LWolf]

164. Obviously not.

Health care is in the hands of for-profit insurance corporations. Purchase of those for-profit plans is now going to be mandated by the government.

I don't see those corporations approving the use of medical mj.

Do you?

[HuckleB]

166. That certainly could be an issue.

It does appear that HCR is not going in a direction that would send research dollars to the most viable treatments, but, as it is often now, toward fiscal outcomes. I still have hope. One must have hope, I suppose.

[LWolf]

169. Without hope, there's nothing. nt

[era veteran]

172. Weed saved my life

Not a drink in over 20 years. Fuck, basically unregulated, alcohol. I have been to too many funerals because of alcohol & none caused by weed. The war on drugs is wasteful bullshit. The sad thing is EVERYBODY knows it does not work. The war on drugs raised the price of weed and lowered the price of cocaine. STUPID Peace, Richard

[HuckleB]

174. I have no arguments with your post.

However, that's really another topic altogether from the article I posted.

[era veteran]

257. saved my life

No doctor could have helped me, reason enough for me.

[HuckleB]

281. That's great.

But it doesn't answer my question.

Cheers!

[montanto]

247. Mine too, dude, mine too.

[Ho Tai]

219. From "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts"

Explodes 20 myths about the plant, the 3rd on the list being, "Marijuana is highly addictive."

If you don't do your homework & read this book, then you have no right to hold forth on cannabis.

And IMO those who believe that we tokers believe the drug to be a panacea are seeing what they want to see and are not objective at all. They might honestly believe that they are truth-seekers, but all they really know is that they HATE POT (whether they know it or not). They're looking through the wrong end of the telescope, they're asking do we really want to place the horse in front of the cart.

Cliches are fun.

[HuckleB]

221. Thanks for cliches.

[Therellas]

222. are we ready to go back to one of the oldest medicines on the planet ???

there really is no hope is there.
I wish i could just kill my hope and faith in humanity once and for all.
at least then i wouldnt care.

[Name removed]

225. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ganja Ninja]

231. There's really more opinion than science behind this article.

First off he begins with a disclaimer,
"A considerable portion of our ignorance can be attributed to government discouragement of cannabis research. Searching the NIH website brings up many studies of both cannabis abuse and cannabis as a therapeutic agent, but most of the general information available is about cannabis as a drug of abuse."
So right off the bat he admits that most research is done by anti-drug researchers.

The second study he cites on comparative withdrawal symptoms he also misrepresents. The study is a comparison of Marijuana, Tobacco, Alcohol and other drugs. The conclusion reached is that between all of those substances Marijuana and Tobacco have 8 out of 10 common withdrawal symptoms. That being more in common than either of them have with the other substances. He also claims the study equates the severity of the withdrawal symptoms. It does not. In fact it states "The tobacco study participants displayed higher baseline symptoms than the cannabis study participants". http://www.uams.edu/psych/car/pdf%20files/budney_pubs/Vandrey05.pdf

The study he cites for multiple sclerosis-related spasticity is does not involve Marijuana at all but instead uses "oral cannabinoid therapy".

He also cites a study done with the drug Dronabinol and concludes that since it did not show promise in controlling nausea and appetite loss that Marijuana is of no use either.

[HuckleB]

233. I don't see how that's misrepresented at all.

And there is another study along the same lines.

Further, that comment is a very small part of the piece.

[Ganja Ninja]

250. Did you read the actual study?

You might want to read it before you just accept this guys summation of it. The other study is done by the same researchers and I'm not going to bother with reading it since I expect he's misrepresenting it as well. Also I'm citing two other studies he uses and the other two of don't involve Marijuana at all. Clearly this guy is anti Marijuana and less than forthright.

[HuckleB]

253. Yes, I did.

Now, how is the summation wrong?

[Ganja Ninja]

282. You can't see the difference between this:

"marijuana discontinuation is associated with a withdrawal syndrome in many users, with some experts likening it in symptoms and severity to nicotine withdrawal."

And the wording of the study he cites to reach that conclusion:
"The tobacco study participants displayed higher baseline symptoms than the cannabis study participants".

Not only that but he neglects to offer that the study involves more than just a head to head comparison of Marijuana and Tobacco but involves other drugs as well.

And what about the 2 other studies he's citing that don't involve Marijuana but are based on synthetic substitutes? Do you want to defend those as well?

[HuckleB]

286. I can see the difference.

And I can also see that the data doesn't necessarily support the second statement, nor does it necessarily support the first. And you are spending hours on one sentence in a piece that covers much more ground. The scientist is acknowledging the breadth of the science and assessment on the matter. Since he doesn't simply agree with you blindly, you go off on a pointless tangent.

Why? Seriously. Ask yourself that question.

[Ganja Ninja]

293. So you refuse to accept he's misrepresenting the study. Ok well lets cover a little more ground.

What about the other 2 studies he's citing that are studies involving synthetic Marijuana substitutes? You seem to be avoiding that subject

[HuckleB]

298. How is the author at sciencebasedmedicine misrepresenting the study?

Sorry, but I think you need to reread what he wrote, in context.

And I'm not avoiding anything. Is BS all you got?

I mean, seriously, why are so many of the people attacking this piece such total dipwads?

[Ganja Ninja]

388. You posted a total piece of shit and challenged people to look at the science.

Is using 2 studies based on synthetic Marijuana substitutes to draw conclusions about Marijuana good science? If you can't defend the piece of shit you posted don't start calling people names, just go away and stop posting this crap.

[HuckleB]

396. Interesting.

You are choosing to ignore the whole of the piece yet again. You can remain in your narrow world. Apparently you work very hard to do just that.

[Ganja Ninja]

422. You're the one avoiding the rest of the article.

Let me ask one last time.

The study he cites for multiple sclerosis-related spasticity is does not involve Marijuana at all but instead uses "oral cannabinoid therapy".

He also cites a study done with the drug Dronabinol and concludes that since it did not show promise in controlling nausea and appetite loss that Marijuana is of no use either.

Is using 2 studies based on synthetic Marijuana substitutes to draw conclusions about Marijuana good science?

[HuckleB]

427. Yes, that's because he's discussing comparisons.

Do you have anything to offer but off-base distractions?

[HuckleB]

365. Since you're so interested in the one sentence that covers this topic...

...this may be of interest, as well.

http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/19/clearing-the-haze-is-marijuana-addictive/

[anigbrowl]

252. The major problem in this thread,,,

,,,is that people have become so used to discussing marijuana in adversarial terms, thanks to the malign influence of the drug war, that anything less than full-blown enthusiasm towards it is interpreted as some kind of attack upon it, complete with charges of hidden agendas and so forth. In other words, it has become such a partisan issue that mild disagreements are magnified out of all proportion.

As I said earlier, I am heartily pro-legalization. Not only for medical purposes, but ultimately for recreational purposes. I do believe marijuana is less harmful on both an individual and social level than alcohol, and no worse than tobacco. I further think that having it legal will reduce crime (by eliminating the risk premium which makes it financially attractive for gangs to grow and smuggle it), raise badly-needed tax revenue and employment in legitimate distribution, open up promising lines of medical research, and possibly offer agricultural benefits too (everything from industrial-scale hemp production to soil renewal and low-impact biofuel).

But it's not magic. It's not going to eliminate the deficit (in California or the nation), it's not going to cure cancer all by itself, it's not going to turn tea-baggers into progressives, and you still shouldn't drive, operate heavy machinery, or perform other safety-critical tasks while you're stoned. Some people should not get stoned at all, or will have difficulty managing their intake and might struggle to balance their use with life's other demands. I think it's reasonable to keep the limitations and possible downsides of cannabis in mind as we move towards legalization so that we're prepared to deal with those issues as they arise, rather than turning a blind eye to them and giving reactionaries free ammunition to claim that people have exaggerated the benefits for selfish gain.

You might like to consider the example of the Netherlands, where enthusiasm for pot and other entheogens in cities like Amsterdam has in some cases led to carelessness, with outlets breaking their license terms by facilitating sale to minors and so on; this has led to a moratorium on new licenses for coffeeshops there and the withdrawal of the right to sell some other kinds of natural psychoactives. The pendulum is swinging towards legalization in the US but it can swing back too - just as alcoholic prohibition has been abolished, but some drinking laws (over-21, dry counties) seem overly strict by European standards.

It's good to keep our feet on the ground that marijuana advocates are not later perceived to have over-promised and under-delivered. Science can be a big driver of change, usually for the good, but large-scale changes are political in nature and an excess of good intentions can rebound to the longer-term detriment of science. Responding to an article that asks the question 'OK, but is marijuana really all that?' by characterizing it as agenda-driven or reactionary does not really help the cause of pot advocates. As the old saw goes, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar...and there has been a lot of piss and vinegar in this thread, as well as on other threads where people dare to temper their enthusiasm for marijuana with caution or skepticism.

Speaking for myself, I do not smoke pot in order to polarize my view of the world into pure black and white, but to expand my perspective and increase my appreciation of the 'in-between' things I might otherwise overlook.

[Fumesucker]

259. So, what do you think of this sentence in the OP?

The data is clear: marijuana discontinuation is associated with a withdrawal syndrome in many users, with some experts likening it in symptoms and severity to nicotine withdrawal.

In my mind that sentence blows the entire credibility of the piece out of the water completely and makes serious discussion impossible.

"Some experts say that there is no such thing as global climate change."

That rhetorical trick is straight out of Faux Nooz and is totally unworthy of anything remotely purporting to be a scientific paper.

[Therellas]

261. I can tell everyone from first hand experience....

no withdrawals from pot.
period.
regardless of duration or situation.
P.E.R.I.O.D.!!!!!!!
although....I almost choked someone out when i tried to quit smoking cigarettes.

[HuckleB]

262. Newsflash.

The sentence acknowledges "some," which means the author is aware that there is not a full consensus. Note that he also uses "associated with." He does not make any false claims. He is merely being accurate in regard to the situation.

Apparently such notions being entertained, discussed or studied are not all right in your world. I find that to be ludicrously fundamentalist, and anti-science.

[Fumesucker]

264. Faux Nooz acnowledges "some" also..

Which means they are aware there is not a full consensus.

"Some people say B Hussein Obama hasn't yet revealed his long form birth certificate."

See how that works?

[HuckleB]

266. You sure are grilling up a lot of herring today.

You are playing rhetorical games of the worst kind. A scientist acknowledges the spectrum of studies and study results. And he acknowledges that there is some disagreement in regard to the overall knowledge base that results from that research. That's how science works. Do you not understand that?

Your BS is acknowledged, yet again.

[Fumesucker]

268. There was no cite at all..

Simply a claim that "some experts" say something bad about cannabis.

And you say I'm being intellectually dishonest.. :eyes:

There wasn't a single fucking cite in the whole piece.

On edit: I'm mistaken there was *one* link to something on PubMed, negative of course.

[HuckleB]

270. Wrong.

[Fumesucker]

272. You're right..

I found one more.. Also negative..

See, I can admit when I'm in error.

The links in that piece were not all that easy to spot on my screen.

On edit: But of course, no cite for the "some experts say" bullshit.

[HuckleB]

274. It links to a piece by one of the experts that hold that viewpoint.

And that piece cites the two studies on this matter.

Now, how is that bad?

[Fumesucker]

276. Drug Monkey?

From the link.

DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded biomedical research scientist.

Who won't get funding if he says anything good about any illegal drug, his entire funding depends on being negative about "drugs" and you know it.

That is far, far from an objective source.

On edit: Got a Monkey on my back, that's where the name Drug Monkey comes from.

[HuckleB]

278. That's your assumption.

And I don't think one can simply ignore some research because of such an assumption.

[Fumesucker]

283. Drug Monkey didn't come from "monkey on my back"?

:rofl:

Look, we all know the government has been desperately trying for seventy years to find something so bad about cannabis that it justifies the inordinate amount of money, time and freedom that have been spent trying to stamp it out.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[HuckleB]

285. Maybe it did.

And it could be facetious for all you know.

But you'd rather make assumptions. That much has been made very clear, today.

[Fumesucker]

288. Like I already said, every single person on the planet makes assumptions..

It's impossible to make it through a day without assumptions.

I make assumptions, you make assumptions.

Our assumptions just differ, that's all.

[HuckleB]

290. So you always have that excuse at hand.

Thus, it's easy for you to never challenge your world view.

Got it.

[Fumesucker]

294. You never make assumptions?

I know better than that.

[HuckleB]

296. And you also have that diversion at hand.

[Fumesucker]

301. You won't even admit that you make assumptions..

How dishonest is that?

[HuckleB]

302. I don't need to admit anything to note that you're simply playing games.

You are simply running in circles.

Keep running.

[anigbrowl]

279. I think it's a reasonable argument which can be countered without getting into a snit.

In no way do I think it 'makes serious discussion impossible'. Marijuana withdrawal is being compared to tobacco, not crack. Even if you accepted this contention at face value, that would put it in the context of being a tolerable cost in exchange for the benefit of people being able to make free choices, as is the case with tobacco consumption.

I believe that comparison is overstated and that withdrawal from marijuana is in fact less stressful and severe than from nicotine for the vast majority of users, but also that it does prevent difficulties for some people and those difficulties are worthy of assessment. Marijuana is a drug and can be abused through excessive use; smoking is one of the most popular ways to consume it but there's no avoiding the fact that smoking is bad for your lungs and can give rise to complications quite aside of psychoactive effects. Also, it's a fact that THC binds to the u1 opioid receptor in the brain, which receptor which is strongly correlated with dependency; this may create or increase difficulties in withdrawal for some users. Again, these difficulties need to be assessed in the broader context how they stack up against the benefits and how severe (or not) these difficulties really are.

It's entirely possible to disagree with or question the quality of the assertions in the piece without resorting to demonizing the author or abandoning all attempts at polite discussion. If you feel an opinion is politicized in some way, it's better to debunk it by presenting contrasting data than by escalating the political language further which makes it into more of a rhetorical than a clinical discussion. And if you don't have the scientific background to dispute claims of a particular study, there are other people who and can point out experimental or logical flaws.

[Fumesucker]

287. When an author tries demonization themselves I have no problem demonizing them.

This has been a rhetorical battle from the very title of the OP on.

I've seen people with laryngectomies holding a cigarette up to the hole in their neck, don't try to minimize how addictive nicotine is.

And the "unbiased source" for that quote was "Drug Monkey", an NIH researcher.

[HuckleB]

289. Now that is pure baloney.

You are fooling yourself to no end. The demonization and knee-jerk attacks came from yourself and others who clearly didn't read the piece, didn't want to consider the information in the piece, and linked to it, and who really just wanted to get up in arms about something they created in their own minds.

Your hypocrisy is out of bounds.

[Fumesucker]

300. I did eventually read the piece..

It tried to make itself look unbiased but it was basically unrelentingly negative.

And it called cannabis a "powerful pharmaceutical", cannabis is an herb not a pharmaceutical.

And cited "sources" like "Drug Monkey"..

Which conjures up this image:

[HuckleB]

303. In other words, you want him to ignore the science you don't like.

And you fail to acknowledge that the piece is written from a physician's perspective, in terms of a physician's role in possibly prescribing.

[Fumesucker]

307. If it has a built in bias, which in the case of cannabis, government research does have

Yes, he should ignore it.

And it is *one* physician's perspective, there are others. Indeed I had a physician in my own family until he passed away a few years ago that was very positive about cannabis and I have another one still in my family that's very negative.

[HuckleB]

311. As opposed to your bias?

I would say the piece is incredibly objective compared to what you bring to the table.

[Fumesucker]

313. Umm.. I'm not writing an article which purports to be scientific..

I'm posting to an opinionated debate website, not exactly the same thing.

[HuckleB]

328. Well, it's been clear for some time that you don't care about science.

But if you don't, why bother posting on this thread at all?

Or are you just making more excuses? You seem to be very good at making excuses for yourself.

[Fumesucker]

374. Actually I care a great deal about science..

But this article had very little to do with actual science and a great deal to do with one person's biased opinion about a highly politically charged subject.

[HuckleB]

381. You keep telling yourself that.

That way you can pretend that you care about science, without actually acting as if you give a rat's arse about science.

[Fumesucker]

386. I read and post in the DU Science forum on a regular basis.. Do you?

I don't recall seeing you there ever.

Here are a few of my posts in that forum, written well before this little contretemps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x59348#59357

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x59040#59067

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x58877#58892

[HuckleB]

398. And that means what?

That you bring your narrow world view to the DU science forum?

So?

[Fumesucker]

405. Read my posts, oh stirrer of shit..

[HuckleB]

407. I've read more than enough.

You're the one who has one purpose: To stir shit, and then blame others.

[Fumesucker]

409. You started this OP, own your words..

A very large number of negative comments, all totally predictable given the crap OP and the title.

[HuckleB]

417. I own my words.

You fail to own your repeated baseless assumptions. You fail to take responsibility for any of your crap.

Your juvenile nonsense is clear. Get a mirror. Stop blaming the world for your own lack of curiosity.

[anigbrowl]

306. of course it's a pharmaceutical

The whole reason for medical marijuana as it currently exists is the strong evidence that cannabis works well for pain management and appetite maintenance, more so than purified extracts like Marinol which isolate THC alone. I am also a proponent of its free availability for adult recreational use, but to the extent that it's currently legally available in some states it's thanks to the extensive clinical literature documenting its success in the management of various medical conditions.

[Fumesucker]

314. Marinol is a phamaceutical, cannabis is not..

And I know of no state where you can pick up cannabis at the regular drug store, where pharmaceuticals are normally sold.

But I'm willing to be educated.

[anigbrowl]

319. 'pharmaceutical' doesn't mean it comes in a blister pack

any substance that acts on the body and has a claimed medical utility is a pharmaceutical. Pharmakon is just the Greek word for 'drug'. Over time we've adapted it to refer to medicine. As I said, the entire reason you can get medical marijuana in some states now is because it is known to have medicinal or pharmaceutical as well as recreational properties...as do multiple other drugs which are also used recreationally.

In short, it's the 'medical' in 'medical marijuana'.

[Fumesucker]

321. I know the etymology of the word..

But you still don't get it at the pharmacy (a word with the same etymology) where you get every other single pharmaceutical of which I'm aware, eh?

[anigbrowl]

323. So what? Picking on the article for this technicality is frankly petty.

It's like saying that smoking for pleasure isn't recreational because it involves the destruction of the weed by burning or digestion and that therefore nothing is being 'created'. Your argument could just as easily be turned on its head by prohibitionists demanding to know it can have medical benefits if it's not on sale on the drugstore.

I think it's pointless to go further down this road of forensic/legalistic arguments.

[Fumesucker]

340. I just think it was a stupid and strongly biased article..

And this is entirely a legalistic situation with respect to the status of cannabis, thanks to the seventy year long now effort of the government to demonize a relatively innocuous herb for racist and political reasons. It's no coincidence that the DEA was started by Richard Nixon and it has mostly gone after those who enjoy cannabis.

Tens of millions of lives have been ruined over this idiotic prohibition, I find it hard to be as detached and analytical about all this as you do because prohibition has touched my own family with its foul reach. Basically I'm angry that nearly in the second decade of the twenty first century we are still fighting this cretinous battle which in any rational society would never have been started in the first place.

[HuckleB]

379. You haven't thought about it at all.

You decided based on the title of the thread.

[anigbrowl]

304. Well then you're playing the game they want you to play

Personally, I did not think the original article was trying to do a hatchet job on marijuana. I am not going to discuss this further with you as it seems to me that you're just looking for something to fight about and I have better things to do.

[Fumesucker]

308. I don't recall attacking you personally..

The way that I have been attacked multiple times on this thread by the OP.

The OP deliberately chose a title for his post that would be politically sensitive and then feigned surprise when people reacted negatively to it.

People's lives are being ruined by the drug war, it is a very sensitive topic to many people on this site.

[HuckleB]

312. Wow! You have a load of hypocrisy in your pants.

[Fumesucker]

315. I statrted out trying to be impersonal and deal strictly with your posts..

You escalated to name calling and personal attacks.

I'm just following your suit.

[HuckleB]

329. Reverse that order, and you're on to something.

So far you've made excuses for your behavior ad nauseum. Now you are trying to say others acted as you did. You started by putting words in my mouth, arguing against a phantom and pretending you were discussing with me. Then you went even more petty and juvenile.

Seriously, do you ever take responsibility for yourself?

[anigbrowl]

318. You didn't, but I see no point in getting into an extended argument.

The OP deliberately chose a title for his post that would be politically sensitive and then feigned surprise when people reacted negatively to it.


I'm afraid I just don't share your view on this. I thought the original article asked a contentious but valid question that was worthy of debate, most of disputation has been way over the top, and pretty much everyone (including me, at one point, and the OP) lost their temper. In short, I think most people have taken this waaaay too personally, and would have done better to smoke a bowl, chill out, and dispute the points raised in the original article on their merits rather than piling on to attack the OP's (imagined) character and motivations.

As I pointed out earlier, the article drew a qualified comparison between marijuana and tobacco. Not crack, not heroin, just tobacco. This does not, in my view, justify the allegations of ill-will, swearing, and so on from various different people that has been directed at the OP, who is not the architect of the drug war, who is not preaching that drugs are sinful or their users are mentally or morally deficient, and who is not arguing the laws need to be tightened.

[fascisthunter]

431. it's a debating tactic the neo-cons use

never, EVER admit being wrong about ANYTHING, and never concede to the oppositions argument. It's why no one will believe him, but think tanks and those who use this form of debate are not clever enough to realize most people see through it.

[HuckleB]

432. Unfortunately, that's what you and your pals have done here.

Your only response has been to demonize me, the author of the piece and anything else you can find to excuse the information provided.

You have offered no actual response other than demonization and pointless distraction.

[fascisthunter]

452. "...I know you are but what am I?"

keep shilling for the shills of big pharma... weeeeeeeee:silly:

[HuckleB]

460. Nope.

The only shilling being done here is for a fundamentalism that asks that no one question anything about the favorite substance of the fundamentalists.

[HuckleB]

273. Thanks for the well-thought out post.

I agree whole-heartedly with your musings.

Cheers!

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

280. ROTFLMAO!

I asked you to back up several of your claims, and it appears that you either don't want to or can't do so.

Therefore, I guess you go juvenile ballistic on me.

:eyes: :nopity: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[krabigirl]

295. +1 from an almost-middle aged suburbanite. :)

[HuckleB]

299. That's right. Go with the baseless, juvenile personal attacks!

Woo HOO! BIG FUN!

:nopity: :rofl: :eyes:

[Fumesucker]

309. You started it..

If you've been paying any attention whatsoever you should be aware that this is a very sensitive topic, people's lives are being ruined by the drug war and you chose a title that certainly could be construed as advocating continuing doing that.

[HuckleB]

310. Now that's funny.

ROTFLMAO!

Seriously funny!

[Fumesucker]

324. I know you think people's lives being ruined is funny

But I don't.

That is the difference between us.

[HuckleB]

325. I see that you like to make up stuff about other people, and pretend it's true.

Well, actually you've been doing that the entire thread.

Any more despicable personal attacks that you want to make?

[Fumesucker]

335. I posted about people's lives being ruined and you found that funny..

That's how I know it, the way you reacted.

[HuckleB]

338. I laughed at the "you started it" routine.

Your drama queen BS that followed, really doesn't add anything except what I already noted.

You are continuing to tell me what I think and say.

THAT IS BS!

Grow up.

[Fumesucker]

343. I'm not the only one who reacted negatively to your OP..

Far from it.

Looking back at the thread I see quite a few people who were less than pleased with your OP and I see you verbally sparring with a good many besides myself.

Take your own advice.

[HuckleB]

345. You're not the only one who reacted blindly, with blind assumptions, to my OP, either.

Neither of those things gives you or any of the other blind, off-topic responders an excuse for their actions.

[Fumesucker]

348. So you completely ignore your own part in the arguments..

What a surprise..

I even started out giving you what you apparently wanted, an acknowledgement that cannabis may perhaps be somewhat addictive but that was not enough for you, you needed abject agreement with your position and fought with everyone who disagreed with you.

[HuckleB]

349. Nope.

I should have stayed a bit calmer than I did amidst the mob of anti-thought fundamentalists.

But, funny enough, even now you are trying to tell me what I want.

You can't help yourself, can you?

[Fumesucker]

350. Then why did you argue with me after I agreed that cannabis might be addictive?

That was my very first post and yet you found something to argue with me about.

[HuckleB]

351. Because it was just a hedge for you to go off on your alcohol tangent.

Duh.

[Fumesucker]

352. It's not a tangent..

It is a very close analogy, you could have just agreed with me because you know damn well I'm right about it.

Two "drugs" one completely legal for adults, one completely illegal (at the federal level anyway) and yet the demonstrably safer drug is the one which is illegal.

It is a direct comparison that needs to be made every time the legal status of cannabis is mentioned. And I intend to make that comparison.

[HuckleB]

356. Yeah, it is a tangent to the piece I posted.

It's nothing but a pointless distraction, in fact. It only shows that you don't want to talk about marijuana. You'd rather go off in every other direction you can come up with....

And that's exactly what you've done on this thread.

[Fumesucker]

371. I couldn't have gone anywhere without your lack of cooperation

If you had said "yes, you're right, it is an injustice" or something similar then we could have had a nice conversation on the subject you wanted to talk about.

But you couldn't do that, you had to fight with everyone that didn't completely agree with you.

[HuckleB]

376. Actually, if you had an open mind, and hadn't responded so narrowly and with such asinine nonsense..

You would have saved yourself a lot of time.

However, it was clear that you were set on the track you wanted to be on.

Stop blaming others for your own actions. At long last, take responsibility for yourself.

[Fumesucker]

385. Let's see..

You start a provocatively titled thread on a highly sensitive and politically charged subject in which you are attacked by multiple people and it's all *their* fault and none of your own.

Your lack of self-awareness is remarkable.

[HuckleB]

391. Again, those are your excuses. (And they're complete BS.)

You redefine things at your whim, so as to never take responsibility for your own behavior.

That's pitiful.

[Fumesucker]

399. I regularly read and post in the DU science forum, do you?

Links to some of my posts in another reply on this thread.

[HuckleB]

402. That's so cool!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fumesucker]

400. I regularly read and post in the DU science forum, do you?

Links to some of my posts in that forum in another reply on this thread.

[HuckleB]

404. And you repeat!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fumesucker]

412. And you fail to answer..

Do you or do you not read and post in the DU science forum?

I've never seen you there, I think your love of science is a fucking sham designed to cover for a desire to stir shit.

[HuckleB]

413. No, I don't.

You're making another one of your baseless assumptions. I post frequently in the Health forum, and I participate in science discussions elsewhere. This thread has made me realize that DU is no place to discuss science.

Apparently preconceived notions and baseless assumptions are the norm for too many here. Those two things don't go well with science.

Do you have a clue as to how ridiculous this and all of your other assumptions are? How incredibly unscientific they are?

[Fumesucker]

434. When I let go of a heavy, dense object it has always fallen to the ground..

Every single time in my nearly sixty years on this planet.

Now when some "expert" says that heavy, dense objects actually fall *upward* when you let go of them I am naturally going to be extremely skeptical.

This "expert" made a claim that counters the everyday experience of quite literally millions of people, that cannabis is as addictive as tobacco.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I'm sorry, "Drug Monkey" does not qualify as extraordinary evidence.

We've seen the like of "Drug Monkey" before and are not impressed.

[HuckleB]

435. Nice baseless analogy.

In other words, an illogical excuse.

Thanks. You've offered plenty of those.

[Fumesucker]

442. So you think cannabis is as addictive as tobacco?

Yes or no..

[HuckleB]

443. I never said that it was.

But you choose to take everything out of context. Heck, the author never even said that it was. He simply stated that some researchers have compared the two.

Think about this. This itty bitty pointless piece of discussion is all that you have engaged in, and this is the most constructive you've been.

And you wonder why I have to note that you and your pals are doing NOTHING but offering pointless, out-of-context distractions.

BYE!

[Fumesucker]

444. Why will you not answer simple questions?

Yes or no, is cannabis as addictive as tobacco?

This is not pointless at all, the point is that the article started off with a bullshit claim, therefore the rest of it can be discounted as equal bullshit.

[HuckleB]

445. I did answer it.

You continue to rewrite what the article actually stated (even in a direct response to a post where I clarified what the article actually said). You continue to try to put words in my mouth. And now you try take words out of my mouth. Further, you fail to understand even the basic tenets of science, partly because you'd rather play pointless gotcha games, while ranting about pointless "simple" questions, based on your own fallacious reinterpretation of what the author wrote.

Play your gotcha games with someone who doesn't care about discussion, knowledge, research, science and education. I refuse.

It is pointless to discuss anything with you. You are offering disingenuous BS, over and over and over again. Your lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity is clear, and your deceit is despicable.

[Fumesucker]

446. You did not answer the question directly..

You said you never said that, which is not really responsive.

In your opinion is cannabis as addictive as tobacco, yes or no?

The article started off with a claim that cannabis is as addictive as tobacco, you can dance around that all you want but that is what it said. The article used the "some experts say" bullshit rhetorical device to introduce a false claim at the very beginning and you never even noticed the ploy.

I'm stating directly and clearly what I think and what my agenda is, you offer doublespeak and evasions when I try to nail you down on specifics.

[HuckleB]

449. Even after I point out your lie, you repeat it.

[Fumesucker]

450. The money quote once again..

The data is clear: marijuana discontinuation is associated with a withdrawal syndrome in many users, with some experts likening it in symptoms and severity to nicotine withdrawal.

That is a claim that cannabis is as addictive as nicotine, everyone reading this can see it and yet you continue to deny it.

And the "some experts" is "Drug Monkey" funded by the US government, a government which has spent seventy years desperately demonizing cannabis and fruitlessly searching for something bad enough about it to justify the utterly fruitless and futile drug war.

Do you believe cannabis is as addictive as nicotine, yes or no?

[HuckleB]

459. Thanks for showing everyone that you are rewriting the piece...

... so you can argue against something you made up.

That is all you have done.

[Dogtown]

316. I am.

You're not.

[HuckleB]

326. I'm not?

And you know this how?

[Dogtown]

346. Transparent

you are.

[HuckleB]

347. Only in a fantasy world of your own creation.

How many DUers are incapable of responding respectfully and thoughtfully, anymore?

It didn't used to be this ludicrous here.

[Dogtown]

353. My response was "thoughtful".

Respect you have to earn. Demanding it is "ludicrous".


You've been around here long enough to know that things are much gentler here than they used to be. Trolls used to get banned, for example, for posting non-progressive tripe designed to annoy.

Either you made that comment for effect (& *this* ludicrous soul responds with a guffaw) or you're as selective with your memory as you are in your sources.


This entire thread is flame-bait. As a career rehabilitation counselor, I assure you that there is *no* physical withdrawal associated with cannabis cessation. You believe what you want, of course. Or what ever fits your agenda.


You've got the attention you crave, but you have certainly NOT contributed to thoughtful discussion.

[HuckleB]

358. Actually, things are much worse than they were five or six years ago.

Intellectual honesty doesn't seem to matter to the vast majority of posters here.

This thread is a very good example of that.

And then there's your claim to have offered a thoughtful, respectful response.

Basic honesty mean nothing to you, apparently.

[Dogtown]

372. Do you have poor comprehension?

I explained quite carefully that my response was not meant to be respectful. You post nonsense that you know is false and offensive, so your martyr-stance when your agenda is questioned isn't going to gain you respect.

I think you understood completely, your response is just one more example of *your* obfuscation.



As to my thoughtfulness, I expended as much thought as your thread deserves. It took little thought to determine that you've cherry-picked a premise counter to progressive principles in the hope of precipitating a shit-storm.

You bewail my basic (dis)honesty, yet your intellectual dishonesty is glaring.

In actuality, marijuana does not have the addiction danger of commonly prescribed drugs. Xanax is addictive. Synthetic opiates are addictive. Any pretense that there is a similar danger to medicinal cannabis is deliberately disingenuous. It ignores that the drugs I've mentioned, et al, are roundly dispensed *despite* their clear dangers. Addiction to those drugs has become epidemic, yet the medical profession has determined that their usefulness outweighs the dangers.

Attempting to link medicinal cannabis to these killer drugs is preposterous, yet you act wounded and pretend to being stung by my ridicule.

Pathetic.

[HuckleB]

377. Oh, lord.

Whatever you say.

Yes, your posts have been pathetic.

Grow up.

[Dogtown]

389. Oh.

You're one of those.

[HuckleB]

390. ROTFLMAO!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

454. what a load of garbage

You post a baseless OP, use incorrect accusations of faulty logic and attack people for being "intellectually dishonest". Brilliant!

[HuckleB]

458. Thanks for offering even more baseless personal attacks.

That is about all you've offered.

[HuckleB]

425. BTW, if you cared about anyone earning respect.

You would have chosen a different set of posters to "respect" at DU.

[Fly by night]

355. Well said.

BTW, I checked your profile and share(d) your hobby.

Nice way to spend one's time.

Come "visit" sometime. ( www.saveberniesfarm.com )

[Dogtown]

357. Thanks for the prop, Fly by night.

I have to sign off for the evening, but I'll touch base soon!



:hi:

[HuckleB]

360. Chest BUMP!

ROAR!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Dogtown]

373. Eliot is the refuge of pseudo-intellectuals

Your quotation defines "sophomoric".

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

378. Rock and roll!

More juvenile personal attacks!

WOO HOO!

ROTFLMAO!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

453. delete

delete

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

455. actually, using the term "refuge of the pseudo-intellectual"

is a sure sign you are a "pseudo-intellectual". I am a University professor and I would LOVE to see the grading rubric you use to make that assessment. Where exactly does Eliot fall on the "pseudo-intellectual" range? Is he greater or less than self-satisfied jackasses who try to use their education to bully others on the internet? I'm just curious...

[HuckleB]

359. Keep up the baseless personal attacks!

And then slap each other on the back.

YEAH, BABY!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!

The mob matters most, right!

:rofl:

[Flaneur]

332. Medical Marijuana: Is LA Ready?

Thread on today's oncoming medical marijuana ordninance hearing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7081622

Much more timeworthy than this thread.

[HuckleB]

337. Thanks for posting.

[bridgit]

364. My friends that use & grow medically are more than ready...

[Name removed]

421. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

441. Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1249

Maybe I should have asked people to read this before posting. Of course, most responders to this thread didn't read the original article before posting, so...

Oh well.

[Swamp Rat]

447. I'm ready to turn my neighborhood, city, and country into a fucking weed farm!!!

It's already full of unsmokable weeds, so why not grow the good kind?

[HuckleB]

448. Indeed.

Although I hope you'll leave some acreage for tomatoes, peppers and snap peas.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

456. And Here's Another Study That Shows No Harm

A ten year study:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9WorIM0RhA

[HuckleB]

457. That's nice.

That's one study. Are you saying that's the be all, end all on that small portion of the possible discussion points.

Oh, and exactly what does that single study have to do with the piece that started this thread?