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

a reply to: luthier

Explain to me what ADD medication is "supposed" to do,

What 3 classes of drug are available to do this

And why Adderall is number one.

Then finially, explain to me how rare the receptor issue is supposedly, and compare that to examples of these "studies".


Ps. No. Do you just believe anyone that disagrees with you is instantly a conspirator? I don't take ADD medication.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Explain to me what ADD medication is "supposed" to do,

What 3 classes of drug are available to do this

And why Adderall is number one.

Then finially, explain to me how rare the receptor issue is supposedly, and compare that to examples of these "studies".


Ps. No. Do you just believe anyone that disagrees with you is instantly a conspirator? I don't take ADD medication.

I don't need to explain anything. I linked three articles. The John Hopkins one was a multi university study. It showed the medication isn't working. It works temporarily.

And yes you have the issue of Drs over diagnosis.

In all these cases your point has been crushed. Pharmaceuticals are far more dangerous than marijuana. Like to the 10th power.

Add on top of that 50 percent of drug trials are completely falsified or have conflicts of interest. That is even from the NEJM. Pharma is highering ghost writers in journalism. This is stuff the actual medical researchers are talking about.

a reply to: luthier

As far as I know he's right that the extremists HERE are a political terror myth, while Christians really do prosecute people for being gay here, and I'm transgender, so.

But no. I was pointing out how ironic your answer is in comparison to his statement. You basically disregarded everything he said and just spoke about freedom and what it costs.

I don't particularly like Muslims more than Christians, but I'm not interested enough to talk about taking it that far in a weed thread. Most of my dislike is the way they dress. I'm gay remember, they both treat me like #, at least Christians know how to dress.

a reply to: luthier

All of your studies are not considering:
Do these people have ADD?

It might as well be titled:
Are drugs you don't need to take harmful?


Did you know chemotherapy causes cancer even though it's one of the best ways to treat it? I'm sure they tested it on people that didn't have cancer to make sure it's appropriate. Wait no, that wouldn't be smart.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

As far as I know he's right that the extremists HERE are a political terror myth, while Christians really do prosecute people for being gay here, and I'm transgender, so.

But no. I was pointing out how ironic your answer is in comparison to his statement. You basically disregarded everything he said and just spoke about freedom and what it costs.

I don't particularly like Muslims more than cheisitian, but I'm not interested enough to talk about taking it that far in a weed thread. Most of my dislike is the way they dress. I'm gay remember, they both treat me like #, at least Christians know how to dress.

Ah yes the arguement of ignorance.

I am not even talking about terrorists.

Sunnis hate Shia. They kill each other. Sunnis hate Kurds. They kill each other.

In Saudia Arabia if your gay you are literally stoned to death. Not just discriminated against. If you are a woman and get raped and were not accompanied by 2 men you get whipped or stoned to death. I'd your a Muslim woman (pregnant even) and married to Christian you will be stoned to death. You will get whipped for driving a car. This is all easily looked up about Saudia Arabia. They don't even consider 90 percent of rape a crime.

If he had picked Jordan that would be a different arguement. He just picked literally one of the worst human rights violators in the world. Thats by human rights watch and amnesty.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

All of your studies are not considering:
Do these people have ADD?

It might as well be titled:
Are drugs you don't need to take harmful?


Did you know chemotherapy causes cancer even though it's one of the best ways to treat it? I'm sure they tested it on people that didn't have cancer to make sure it's appropriate. Wait no, that wouldn't be smart.

Guess you didn't read the study then.

Nine out of 10 young children with moderate to severe attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder continue to experience serious, often severe symptoms and impairment long after their original diagnoses and, in many cases, despite treatment, according to a federally funded multicenter study led by investigators at Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

The study, published online Feb. 11 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, is the largest long-term analysis to date of preschoolers with ADHD, the investigators say, and sheds much-needed light on the natural course of a condition that is being diagnosed at an increasingly earlier age

a reply to: imjack

If you were gay you would be killed in Saudia Arabia.

Ironically some Muslims countries are OK with being transgender and will even pay for sex changes. That way your not gay. This only goes for males. Generally speaking the hard-line countries don't care much for woman's rights at all.

a reply to: luthier

I'm not going to argue with a man, that believes in a fairytale man, that said you should never hate anyone ever, about his violence being less than "stoned to death", being acceptable.

I'm not personally holding you accountable to the hypocrisy of your group and their actions, but you can't deny it's there.


As to what the fairytale man said, if you had to weigh if that part was more important, or if being gay was more important, he'd probably love me.

I'm not even racist. Mexicans are my least favorite.

They're all still favorites.

a reply to: luthier

And if misdiagnosed? ??


How you cannot comprehend that's the issue blows me away.

Useless studies. The receptors issue is rare. The media made it seem like 9/10 freaking people have it. It doesn't surprise me 9/10 "ADD cases" don't respond well to medication. They're MISDIAGNOSED.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

I'm not going to argue with a man, that believes in a fairytale man, that said you should never hate anyone ever, about his violence being less than "stoned to death", being acceptable.

I'm not personally holding you accountable to the hypocrisy of your group and their actions, but you can't deny it's there.


As to what the fairytale man said, if you had to weigh if that part was more important, or if being gay was more important, he'd probably love me.

I'm not even racist. Mexicans are my least favorite.

They're all still favorites.

I am an agnostic atheist who are you argueing with? I mean I do lean towards diesm and pantheism but....I am for the purposes of this conversation an agnostic atheist. So again nice fail.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

And if misdiagnosed? ??


How you cannot comprehend that's the issue blows me away.

Useless studies. The receptors issue is rare. The media made it seem like 9/10 freaking people have it. It doesn't surprise me 9/10 "ADD cases" don't respond well to medication. They're MISDIAGNOSED.

Again this was not the media this was a study by John Hopkins university which included a dozen other universities.

It didn't say 9/10 people have add. Maybe you should read the study, take time to comprehend it. The gazette is John Hopkins news letter but it's easy to find the actual study.

The diagnosis was based on severe behavioural problems.

How does one diagnosed add properly?

If you use neuroscience these kids brains look just like add hyperactive kids.

Of coarse. Just like if my dog died it would look like I am depressed. Or if I am hungry my brain would show this.

That In now way indicates the diagnosis or treatment is correct. Regardless of how much you love the world receptors. Or vasoconstrictors or neurotransmitters or any other word you don't understand the relevance of.

a reply to: luthier

I'm just going to laugh at you because you don't understand about flipping the receptors.

It's as simple as this:
Dumbass mom thinks sugar-eater kid has ADD takes him to doctor and demands medication.

Any study aiming at the big players of the ADD drugs (both stimulants) only hate the idea of CHILDREN ON STIMULANTS. I agree that's particularly absurd because a STIMULANT makes them LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE add.

Because real ADD has flipped receptors the way your child reacts is extremely important. If they DON'T calm down and THE MEDICATION DOESN'T WORK OR MAKES IT WORSE they don't have flipped receptors and they need a SEDATIVE.

What does longterm effects of taking ADD meds without having ADD cause? It CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE normally.


This is all disclosing the fact THERE IS SAFE MEDICATIONS that flip receptors that aren't STIMULANT or SEDATIVE and makes them more calm at the RISK OF ALMOST NOTHING.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier
What does longterm effects of taking ADD meds without having ADD cause? It CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE normally.

Does it? How do you know this? Proof?

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

I'm just going to laugh at you because you don't understand about flipping the receptors.

It's as simple as this:
Dumbass mom thinks sugar-eater kid has ADD takes him to doctor and demands medication.

Any study aiming at the big players of the ADD drugs (both stimulants) only hate the idea of CHILDREN ON STIMULANTS. I agree that's particularly absurd because a STIMULANT makes them LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE add.

Because real ADD has flipped receptors the way your child reacts is extremely important. If they DON'T calm down and THE MEDICATION DOESN'T WORK OR MAKES IT WORSE they don't have flipped receptors and they need a SEDATIVE.

What does longterm effects of taking ADD meds without having ADD cause? It CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE normally.


This is all disclosing the fact THERE IS SAFE MEDICATIONS that flip receptors that aren't STIMULANT or SEDATIVE and makes them more calm at the RISK OF ALMOST NOTHING.

Sure there is.

Thats why your able to link all those studies I assume.

How would you diagnosis a kid with add?

Considering these studies I linked included brain scans.

Add is a survival trait of human beings. Nature has made several different models of human being. The problem is sticking them in a class and thinking they all learn the same way.

a reply to: luthier

If you give someone a Stimulant and they react like it's a Sedative, they have ADD simple as that.

If they don't, you need to stop giving them Stimulants immediately. Sedative meds for ADD are cutting losses. This is why there are even Sedative treatments now. It's for people that have "ADD" NOT ADD.

CEM treatments have no risk.


This # doesn't need studies, it's been proven, Wikipedia any of the ADD MEDICATIONS.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier
What does longterm effects of taking ADD meds without having ADD cause? It CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE normally.

Does it? How do you know this? Proof?

Krazy I am sorry to hijack your thread. I just was trying to prove that pharmaceuticals are far more dangerous to society than marijuana. Which JACK HERE denied and the we got on this tangent. However he seems to contradict this by saying the treatments are widespread medical error. Either way this does not discredit the danger of pharmaceuticals in the marketplace.

Now we are stuck on flipped receptors. Something I have not encountered other than anatomy of an addicts brain.

Oh well...

a reply to: luthier

There isn't a SINGLE Wikipedia that doesn't mention this. Apparently you and these doctors haven't heard of Wikipedia. Google one of the drugs. # it. I'll find you a link because you can't type Adderall Wiki into google.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

If you give someone a Stimulant and they react like it's a Sedative, they have ADD simple as that.

If they don't, you need to stop giving them Stimulants immediately. Sedative meds for ADD are cutting losses. This is why there are even Sedative treatments now. It's for people that have "ADD" NOT ADD.

CEM treatments have no risk.

Uh no. Stimulants work for everybody regarding focus. Thats why they were invented. Thats why students mis use them. Thats why soldiers got them.

They do work. For a few years. Then they don't

Where are your studies by the way.

I provided mine by the most respected medical and research schools in the country. Where are yours.

Let me guess the national enquirer or YouTube?

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

There isn't a SINGLE Wikipedia that doesn't mention this. Apparently you and these doctors haven't heard of Wikipedia. Google one of the drugs. # it. I'll find you a link because you can't type Adderall Wiki into google.

Me and these drs don't use an internet user based encyclopedia as fact. Yeah no kidding.

a reply to: luthier

My biggest problem with pharmaceuticals is that dtc or direct-to-consumer marketing is legal with them. If you want to jump down a deep rabbit hole, look up how dtc ads for pharmaceuticals are straight up banned in all but 2 countries. I'm of the opinion that fixing that one issue would fix TONS of problems with the pharmaceutical industry over-prescribing drugs.