DEA Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

a reply to: luthier
They're not going to distribute it until there is a safe option(pills). And when they do prepare for more anti-alcohol campaigns. Nothing is legally hinging this more than the pills. You can demand it all you want, only money for research will speed it up.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

It's no less dangerous than Advil, the question is just, why not take Advil?

People won't use pot responsibily. That's a fact too. They already don't.

Decriminalized drugs and ilegal sale is the future, your state is already perfect it sounds. You just need to wait until it's distribution, because atm the pills make people sick. But if you think we all need heavy access to smoke more, that ain't healthy! Hands down!

I don't think the Goverment needs to be Dad, but 21 no contest for my age vote andown much scruity for the medical. Teaching 'sick people' to smoke is stupid. They're not going to distribute it until there is a safe option(pills).

Sorry but we just have to agree to disagree.

I could link you lots of studies bit I think you would just reject them.

My sister in law is actually a researcher working on the VA project.

My wife is a research professor (in a totally different field)

I have been around all kinds of academics and turned on to all kinds of studies and ideas.

Many people vape now. There is no link to smoking and cancer yet. Though it can't be good for you sure.

Marijuana is on the level of coffee as far as adverse effects.

It was made illegal because of first black jazz musicians and laborers from Mexico, nylon from dupont, and later hippies (and blacks again).

Who cares man. Medications make you sick. Prescription drugs are the biggest killer outbof them all.

a reply to: luthier

Show me research that suggests smoking it is in any way superior to the same effects administered in a different form.

The reason vape DOESN'T COUNT is because people are stupid and WILL NOT all vape. I live in the epicenter. 1/10 people vape. Hell, even I don't vape. And it's probably not realistically 1/10.

They will NOT distribute until there is a safe option.(pills)

Then they will distribute both.
And with anti-alcohol campaigns.
But not until pills. No amount of legal work will change that.

Hell rubbing Cannabis OIL would probably be 1000x more likely to do anything than smoking it would when it comes to Cancer. The issue is people SMOKING.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me research that suggests smoking it is in any way superior to the same effects administered in a different form.

The reason vape DOESN'T COUNT is because people are stupid and WILL NOT all vape. I live in the epicenter. 1/10 people vape. Hell, even I don't vape. And it's probably not realistically 1/10.

They will NOT distribute until there is a safe option.(pills)

Then they will distribute both.
And with anti-alcohol campaigns.
But not until pills. No amount of legal work will change that.

Hell rubbing Cannabis OIL would probably be 1000x more likely to do anything than smoking it would when it comes to Cancer. The issue is people SMOKING.

Show me any proof of what your saying.

Everything so far has been centered around yourself.

Pretty sure you know they can't figure out why smoking it creates the desired effect. Hence the issue with the pills.

Your the first person I have ever heard who is gunning for big pharma to patent and control a natural plant that grows.

Prescription drugs are literally the biggest most harmful drug problem in the US.

We give speed in the form of aderol and Ritalin to children yet the evidence is it doesn't work for more than a couple years and causes permanent brain damage. And your worried about weed?

Chances are the junk food you have eaten is worse for you.

a reply to: luthier

Well duh. They need support.


Who do you think their next target is after alcohol?
Hint: B*g T*b*cco

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Well duh. They need support.


Who do you think their next target is after alcohol?
Hint: B*g T*b*cco

Sigh

Forget it.

Take your pills. Pay the man for something that growes naturally .

a reply to: luthier

Things to smoke:
Crack: Stupid
Meth: Stupid
Coke: Stupid
Heroin: Stupid
"Spice": Stupid
Cigarettes: Stupid
Weed: ????????

a reply to: imjack

Why doesn't smoking weed cause cancer?

I don't smoke weed by the way.

a reply to: luthier

LOL "we give speed to children" you mean amphetamine?

Is your suggestion we should give them LITERALLY COCAINE instead because it's "natural"?

????????

a reply to: luthier

Just assume SMOKING causes cancer. It will be easier to comprehend why Weed doesn't make a difference.

originally posted by: Iamtherealgod

The number one argument for marijuana I've heard is pain relief. Bull Sh! I've had chronic nerve pain for almost 2 decades and upon trying pot all it did was amplify the pain signals but I didn't care because I was stoned and joking around.

So it made you not care about your pain and made you joke around and have fun. That is what you say is Not Working???

So what is working?? Making you think about your pain and making you miserable and have no fun???

I fail to see how that argument works in your favor. Unless being grumpy and in pain is simply what you want to be. In that case just keep doing nothing as that seems to be working.

a reply to: luthier

There is no "cause of cancer".

It's weighted in risk.

The top offender is damaging cells.

Smoking anything can damage cells.

Literally destroying cells is safer for avoiding cancer.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

LOL "we give speed to children" you mean amphetamine?

Is your suggestion we should give them LITERALLY COCAINE instead because it's "natural"?

????????

My suggestion is the medical industry should be far more concerned with the problems they created. With pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

LOL "we give speed to children" you mean amphetamine?

Is your suggestion we should give them LITERALLY COCAINE instead because it's "natural"?

????????

My suggestion is the medical industry should be far more concerned with the problems they created. With pharmaceuticals.

Sounds like deflection as there is proven science amphetamine switches receptors, while you strawman with arguements it's "similar" to coc aine, simultaneously suggesting "only natural" medication.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

There is no "cause of cancer".

It's weighted in risk.

The top offender is damaging cells.

Smoking anything can damages cells.

Literally destroying cells is safer for avoiding cancer.

Thats strange then that researchers are puzzled as to why marijuana smome doesn't cause cancer. Including the ones who set out to find answers. And that pot smoke slowed or stops tumor growth.

I don't assume anything. I read studies.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

There is no "cause of cancer".

It's weighted in risk.

The top offender is damaging cells.

Smoking anything can damages cells.

Literally destroying cells is safer for avoiding cancer.

Thats strange then that researchers are puzzled as to why marijuana smome doesn't cause cancer. Including the ones who set out to find answers. And that pot smoke slowed or stops tumor growth.

I don't assume anything. I read studies.

I'm sure you read "a lot" of "studies". That's why your conclusion about amphetamine isn't based off tabloid articles about drug users who seek Adderall.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

LOL "we give speed to children" you mean amphetamine?

Is your suggestion we should give them LITERALLY COCAINE instead because it's "natural"?

????????

My suggestion is the medical industry should be far more concerned with the problems they created. With pharmaceuticals.

Sounds like deflection as there is proven science amphetamine switches receptors, while you strawman with arguements it's "similar" to coc aine, simultaneously suggesting "only natural" medication.

The long term studies show amphetamines have no effect on ADD after a couple years. Not only that they continue to decay already weak dopamine productions. It's especially bad in children.

No strawman.

How did I misrepresent any arguement you made?

a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

Bull####. So dumb they can't even describe it and just write it off "mysterious"!

Ps. New York Times isn't a study.