Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression

Johnboy1951

@ISAW

Go anmd read a book will you.

You made the claim. You support your claim or withdraw it.

I most certainly am not going to do your research for you.

I will now 'unfollow' this thread, as it is pointless.

You demand others support their expressed views but refuse or are incapable of doing the same yourself.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

if you just want to get stoned don't try to sell us this line that you are doing it for cancer or MS. When did you ever do anything for cancer or MS not related to legalising cannabis? did you ever organise to visit and talk to someone you didn't know in a hospital or clinic for example?

After spending 15years as a nurse i have seen and done plenty that was not at all related to canabis, i have done many hospital visits and i have also witnessed first hand the benifits of medicinal mj in chronic health situations, and i have lost some of my nearest and dearest to cancer as have many, so i do want canabis legalised what ever way i can get it, medicinal or otherwise. So long as it is the god given natural hemp plant and not some pharmacutically produced fake.

i am no longer going to reply to you either.Its such a shame that this thread has ended up like this.

Elevator

ya at the risk of getting a ban from politics for a few days ;

isaw you seem to be a complete tosspot!!

cannabis has been around a very very long time and will be here long after we're all worm food!

there's an endless amount of research to back up the need to end prohibition!

actually when ya think of it, it was never made illegal for health reasons in the first place so I don't know why people get all offended when others want to use the plant for whatever reason

this debate has been sponsored by the yanks for the past 40/50 so they could protect their various industries!!

free the weed!!

ps I really do hope I never have the misfortune of seeing isaw in a thread ever again

Elevator

back in b4 the imminent ban

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/mental-health-campaigner-back-on-his-feet-thanks-to-cannabis-biscuits-140354.html

Some might call it a miracle of Christmas, but Mr McCarthy says it is down to eating ‘cannabis biscuits’.

The well-known campaigner, who was diagnosed with motor neuron disease last year shortly after beating cancer, said his life had become a living nightmare as he was confined to a wheelchair and scooter to get around.

After hearing "pub talk" that cannabis was good for treating pain, Mr McCarthy began eating small amounts of hash biscuits.

"It sounds like such a simple thing but my life was revolving around how I would get to the toilet. I couldn’t go to friends houses or anywhere really as it was always hanging over me.

"Now I can walk short distances which means I can go down to my local pub and get to the toilet unaided. Today I am in the house sweeping the living room floor — it is unbelievable.

"All I know is I could not walk. I ate cannabis biscuits and now I can. I understand the medical profession cannot really comment on this but I have asked them to note it and record it."

Mr McCarthy said his doctors were "stunned" by his newfound ability to walk. Since he began taking the biscuits, he has also begun researching the issue and came across studies in relation to motor neuron disease and cannabis.

The most recent paper was published in the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine in May of this year.

It calls for clinical trials to be carried out on the effects of cannabis on patients with motor neuron disease due to benefits seen in trials on animals, and anecdotal evidence from people with the disease.

"In areas where it is legal to do so, marijuana should be considered in the pharmacological management of ALS," the paper says.

The founder of mental health charity Mad Pride Ireland, Mr McCarthy said he was "surprised" his medical research team had not alerted him to the possibilities of what might be out there.
*
This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Friday, December 24, 2010

mikom

Elevator wrote: »

The well-known campaigner, who was diagnosed with motor neuron disease last year shortly after beating cancer, said his life had become a living nightmare as he was confined to a wheelchair and scooter to get around.

After hearing "pub talk" that cannabis was good for treating pain, Mr McCarthy began eating small amounts of hash biscuits.



"All I know is I could not walk. I ate cannabis biscuits and now I can. I understand the medical profession cannot really comment on this but I have asked them to note it and record it."

I know what I'm getting Colm Murray for Christmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkiGV2noKk

Elevator

mikom wrote: »

I know what I'm getting Colm Murray for Christmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkiGV2noKk

jeez I didn't know he's been ill !!

it wouldn't do him any harm if he heard about the cannabiscuits! someone like Colm could try force the government to adhere to the Shenghan agreement so those suffering can import our medical cannabis from cannabisbureau.nl

mikom

http://api.ning.com/files/WNWOMaWEK6liCACXtpjlh4RF5lxzGt9xvLP3fYFEhHHFf-Viyb1DUY*9kqobo1NZuNcER1yxi5nY5FHApZvX47TPs81kejlr/Lightbulb760506.jpg

Elevator

mikom wrote: »

http://api.ning.com/files/WNWOMaWEK6liCACXtpjlh4RF5lxzGt9xvLP3fYFEhHHFf-Viyb1DUY*9kqobo1NZuNcER1yxi5nY5FHApZvX47TPs81kejlr/Lightbulb760506.jpg

info below concerning the application process of the European court of human rights

if I only had the money!!

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/37C26BF0-EE46-437E-B810-EA900D18D49B/0/ENG_QR.pdf

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

After spending 15years as a nurse i have seen and done plenty that was not at all related to canabis,

If that is the case then I withdraw any suggestion that you did not assist people form a vocational perspective. Getting paid to do it professionally does not count by the way. I am referring to the work you didn't get paid for. Many stoners campaigning for recreational use don't do such work.

i have done many hospital visits and i have also witnessed first hand the benifits of medicinal mj in chronic health situations, and i have lost some of my nearest and dearest to cancer as have many, so i do want canabis legalised what ever way i can get it, medicinal or otherwise. So long as it is the god given natural hemp plant and not some pharmacutically produced fake.

again medicinal use is NOT recreational use and please dont mix them up by throwing in "medicinal or otherwise"

Also cannabis isn't a cure for cancer so that is a red herring.

A;lso yu should know pharmaceuticals are irelands biggest export ( look at the thread title again) and even though they are artificial still produce about 75 per cent of all medicines.

If you are only for natural things you wouldn't be using a computer

And copping out with "you have insulted me" isn't getting your case anywhere either. If I thought you had no background in supporting people in who suffered a medical way I was wrong about that and apologise.

mikom

ISAW wrote: »

I am referring to the work you didn't get paid for.

You obviously don't know many nurses.

roboshatner

I think they should.

Smoke on your days off.

If caught smoking in work you get the sack.

Johnboy1951

There have been a lot of links posted in this thread and I must admit I have not tried all of them, so this may be duplication ... if so I apologise.

The potential of THC to aid in the treatment and cure of some forms of cancer has been investigated/studied, and the results appear to be very promising.
The difficulty seems to be that although millions of $/€/whatever currency, are poured into the design, test and manufacture of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of such diseases, there appears - at least to the casual observer - very little effort put into following up on potential cures, such as those reported in the following studies.

As far back as 1974 the results of a US study on THC & CBD showed great promise.
Rather than further study, it seems the results were buried or at least not used for further study.

More recently .... late 90s/early 2000s? ..... a Madrid study found similar results, again indicating the potential benefit of the extracts from the cannabis plant.

From what I have read, it appears to *me*, that most of the delay in producing 'medicines' has been due to the effort to not only design the medicine but to ensure that the result is patentable.

1974 study
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntineoplasticActivityOfCannabinoids/index.php

2000 study Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876

more detailed information from the study
http://cannabismedicalresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/cannabinoids-potential-anticancer.html

The summary of the study contains some very interesting statements ......

Cannabinoids exert palliative effects in patients with cancer and inhibit tumour growth in laboratory animals.

Cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumour cells, as well as by inhibiting tumour angiogenesis and metastasis.

Cannabinoids are selective antitumour compounds, as they can kill tumour cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts.

Further basic and preclinical research on cannabinoid anticancer properties is required. It would be desirable that clinical trials could accompany these laboratory studies to allow us to use these compounds in the treatment of cancer.

From a personal perspective .... if I am ever diagnosed as having cancer, I will most certainly be looking to such compounds to aid in my (hopeful) recovery.
Just because some big pharma corporation has not yet sorted out a patentable medicine for me is no reason I should not have access to the unpatentable natural compounds. Yes that is opinion!

regards.

ISAW

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

2000 study Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876

more detailed information from the study
http://cannabismedicalresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/cannabinoids-potential-anticancer.html

The summary of the study contains some very interesting statements ......

regards.

Didnt know about this. and it is a peer review journal. thanks for that . I will read up on it.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

ADD/ ADHD

ADHD by Ryan P (anecdotal - no date)
http://www.rxmarijua...ments/ADHD4.htm

Anecdotal! no date! i.e. not proper research

Marijuana and ADD Therapeutic uses of Medical Marijuana in the treatment of ADD (no date)
http://www.onlinepot...cal/add&mmj.htm

Baised source

Recipe For Trouble (anecdotal/ news - 2002 )

Association between cannabinoid receptor gene (CNR1) and childhood attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spanish male alcoholic patients (full - 2003)
http://www.nature.co...l/4001278a.html

Yep a proper journal for once and it says:

this is the first study relating the CNR1-gene polymorphisms with ADHD in alcoholic patients. These data are consistent with the fact that the cannabinoid system is known to affect dopaminergic transmission, with the malfunctioning of the dopaminergic system being regarded as a potential physiopathological cause of ADHD. Further studies are needed to determine the functional basis of the observed association.

i.e first and inconclusive

Cannabinoids effective in animal model of hyperactivity disorder (abst - 2003)
http://www.cannabis-...el.php?id=162#4

Hardly non bised since it is from the association of cannabanoid medicnces but if it is done with correct medical protocols it is valid.

Is research on rats and says "Until now there is no clinical research with cannabis or single cannabinoids in ADHD "

Cannabis 'Scrips to Calm Kids? (news - 2004)
http://www.foxnews.c...,117541,00.html

Fox news??? "There are certainly WMD in Iraq and we will show you where" Need I say more?

Fitness to drive in spite (because) of THC (abst - 2007)
http://www.unboundme...ause__of_THC%5D

Cant see the realtionship with ADHD

Science: THC normalized impaired psychomotor performance and mood in a patient with hyperactivity disorder (news - 2007)
http://www.cannabis-...ikel.php?id=254

Same source as the last! And fromt he canni9bius in medicine people. Found: "people with ADHD are found to violate traffic regulations, to commit criminal offences and to be involved in traffic accidents more often than the statistical norm" and conclude from their investigation that "it has to be taken into account that in persons with ADHD THC may have atypical and even performance-enhancing effects."
But this is based on a population of ONE person!
It is not sound research.



Cannabis Improves Symptoms of ADHD (full - 2008)
http://www.cannabis-...n_2008_01_1.pdf


Again same research as the last two!

Cannabis use and adult ADHD symptoms. (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18242878

Actually argues AGAINST the claim!
Finds:
The results suggest that cannabis use leads to other drug use, which in turn leads to increased ADHD symptoms.

Autism, ADD, ADHD and Marijuana Therapy (news - 2008)
http://www.entheolog...iewer.asp?a=319

dealt with this lot earlier in the thread. Some of the doctors concerned are world authorities on autism but the conclusion of positive treatments based on cannabis use isn't apparent!

Why I Give My 9-year-old Pot (anecdotal/news - 2009)

Well again "anecdotal" !

now i can go on quoting these all day...but am very sure i'd annoy the heck outa people and i have no intention of doing that.

Feel free to do so. None of the above are evidence to support the autism or ADD treated by cannabis claim. Few are proper research. Of those that are they are inconclusive , use no double blind control group tests ( I mean extrapolatinf from a population of ONE isnt drug trial research )

you(isaw) have yet to make one solid valid arguement not to consider canabis for monitary reasons...which is what this thread is about.

I again refer you to "shifting the burden of evidence" and "proving a negative" you will find
them listed under "logical fallacy"

Unassociated

ISAW, all research in this topic is going to be vulnerable to your "anecdotal evidence" argument, why? Because any study that would satisfy your skepticism would need to determine thoroughly the effects of the drug on the brain and society, a feat which hasn't yet been achieved in any of the social sciences. I admire skepticism, I am a skeptic but you are being unreasonable. I am not saying you are wrong to have reservations or concerns about the legalization of cannabis, but taking an opposing stance until there are concrete scientific conclusions is close minded and not a skeptical approach.

We have no conclusive evidence of the affects of cannabis, yet it is outlawed based upon speculation. The are clear problems that have arisen from it's prohibition. One way to determine if it the negative speculation is correct, or if the problems due to its prohibition are worse than the problems due it's legalization is to simply legalize it and see what happens.

There is little scientific argument for or against cannabis legalization. The only way we can find out what is the best position is to wait for a major social scientific breakthrough or to try the alternative.

ISAW

Unassociated wrote: »

ISAW, all research in this topic is going to be vulnerable to your "anecdotal evidence" argument, why? Because any study that would satisfy your skepticism would need to determine thoroughly the effects of the drug on the brain and society, a feat which hasn't yet been achieved in any of the social sciences.

Wrong! i have nothing against properly designed research . For example say you claimed deadly nightshade might be usefull for heart patients. We can sit down and examine the plant , isolate the drug in which we are interested and determine doseage and administer different doseages to several groups including a control group to measure placebo effect. That is how drug trials are done. Many stoners wont be interested in this since they just want to get ripped.

I have not seen a convincing argument for making cannabis totally free and legal. Even alcohol or tobacco is controlled.

I admire skepticism, I am a skeptic but you are being unreasonable. I am not saying you are wrong to have reservations or concerns about the legalization of cannabis, but taking an opposing stance until there are concrete scientific conclusions is close minded and not a skeptical approach.

I have an iopen mind but not so open my brain falls out of my cranium!
If you tell me ther is a use for opiates digitalis asprin or anything else I also want to see some convincing evidence. If TCH could solve some pain stress or other effects I would be in favour of it. But what for example iof the "high" element of TCH could be isolated and removed and the medically helpful element isolated. The stoners would not be interested because they are interested in getting high and not in a medicinal plant. the "medicine" argument is only waffle to them.

I can't see any huge problem in making oral cannabinoids available under prescription.

We have no conclusive evidence of the affects of cannabis, yet it is outlawed based upon speculation.

WE HAVE evidence on the effect of cannabis. It slows reaction time etc. So it may not be advisable for exam ple to drive while under the influence of any drug. This argument is aside form a host of other ones which have to be looked into befored a controlled level of availability is considered.

The are clear problems that have arisen from it's prohibition. One way to determine if it the negative speculation is correct, or if the problems due to its prohibition are worse than the problems due it's legalization is to simply legalize it and see what happens.

We could say the same of heroine. Why not legalise that and see what happens? It isn't an argument people will buy into as a reason for legalisation for anything.

There is little scientific argument for or against cannabis legalization.

Actually that is not necessarily true! there are ample studies showing psychotic effects as far as I know. But the poi9nt is that it is currently illegal and the argument isnt a "balance" the people who want to make it legal have to support THEIR case and not ask for the opposition to prove the negative.

The only way we can find out what is the best position is to wait for a major social scientific breakthrough or to try the alternative.

No! We could do research and have controlled trials and allow controlled medicinal regulated introduction for people that may really benefit from it and not just for stoners.

stevoslice

i've done the MS Readathon, so have most other people my age, i have also many friends who smoke and do volunteer work in hospitals and hospices, so your point about stoners being unwilling to contribute/help ill people is wrong, ill-informed and so totally prejudiced that i think you have a different agenda than what you let on.

Also the 'high' is the reason marijuana is such an effective painkiller, it's all to do with receptors in the brain and how thc is a perfect fit for same.

On phone now but for the first time in 8 years on boards i may hit the ignore button.

ISAW

thebhoy wrote: »

i've done the MS Readathon, so have most other people my age, i have also many friends who smoke and do volunteer work in hospitals and hospices, so your point about stoners being unwilling to contribute/help ill people is wrong, ill-informed and so totally prejudiced that i think you have a different agenda than what you let on.

Your evidence is anecdotal. Ill accept your word about yourself but not as a spokesman for others! You claim people who are interested in recreational use are very interested in doing volunteer work. I doubt you can produce any evidence that this cohort are more caring than non recreational drug users.

Also you are suggesting i have an "agenda" and am lying about it! Just what do you think my "real" agenda is?

Also the 'high' is the reason marijuana is such an effective painkiller, it's all to do with receptors in the brain and how thc is a perfect fit for same.

Any evidence? And the point I made was "if it could be done by removing the high element would stoners still be for it?"

On phone now but for the first time in 8 years on boards i may hit the ignore button.

run away for the issues if you wish. Ignoring the issues wont convince anyone you are right.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

If that is the case then I withdraw any suggestion that you did not assist people form a vocational perspective. Getting paid to do it professionally does not count by the way. I am referring to the work you didn't get paid for. Many stoners campaigning for recreational use don't do such work.

maybe the stoners you know dont...but based on your previous reference to the stoners thqat you know that doesn't surprise me...but just like you have said to me 'dont judge the book by the cover'(that you sugested i buy)...you prejudged me using your own experience..you made assumptions.

Now based on my experience of stoners i know(both medicinal users and recreational users), many if not all of them take time out of their busy lives to do vocational work...hippies and stoners like to spread the love and compassion...

ISAW wrote: »

again medicinal use is NOT recreational use and please dont mix them up by throwing in "medicinal or otherwise"

My point was that i want canabis legalised in whatever way possible..

ISAW wrote: »

Also cannabis isn't a cure for cancer so that is a red herring.

..this was discussed on a thread before in conspirecy theories...but i would like to point out that there are just a few people that may disagree with your opinion...
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/59
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/24/8826?ijkey=951f5f9d238bdf059cf30ee2be3a5a31aaf2b094

there has been significant reserch done on multiple types of cancer with canabinoids,endocanibinoids,and thc...and if you looked at Granny Strom Crows list...link provded on page 35 and page 45 of this thread you'd have seen the work that has been compiled for prostate cancer, gilioma brain cancer, breast cancer to name but a few you would have seen these too.. and two of the you tube links are medical professors discusing endocannibinoids in cancer reserch...also a few pages back....

ISAW wrote: »

A;lso yu should know pharmaceuticals are irelands biggest export ( look at the thread title again) and even though they are artificial still produce about 75 per cent of all medicines.

and keeping medicinal mj as an illegal substance is earning how much again,and those people who are using marijuana medicinally who are not entitled to the medical card...where is it that they must resort to get their marijuana from??

ISAW wrote: »

If you are only for natural things you wouldn't be using a computer [

there you go assuming again...
[/QUOTE]

ISAW wrote: »

And copping out with "you have insulted me" isn't getting your case anywhere either.

when did i say that then??you made an assumtion, based on your experience...and i told you that in my experience that was not the case...
putting words in my mouth doesn't get your case any futher with me either!

ISAW wrote: »

If I thought you had no background in supporting people in who suffered a medical way I was wrong about that and apologise.

is that after the first assumption, or second time when you assumed i didn't know what vocational means?either way apology accepted.

I am not going to make any assumptions.... i never have...i dont know you...all i want to do is get the word out that there is a lot more to this plant than meets the eye, as i said i have witnessed first hand that this plant is increadibly benificial in multiple diseases, with low toxicity, few(benifical) side effects, and there has never been a recorded death by overdose of marijuana...
30 paracetamol taken at the one time can give you perminant liver damage. http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpic9.html
You can buy that in any small shop/supermarket in the country.

This thread is about cannabis being legalised in the hope of helping a country heal from a recession, can it make money?....yes it can.
Can it be benificial medicinally?i believe it can.
Do i want to buy any of your books?...no i dont.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

Actually argues AGAINST the claim

wouldn't want to appear biased no would we...

ISAW wrote: »

Well again "anecdotal" !

yes there is a lot of anecdotal evidence...a lot of 'ordinary' people have evidence that shouldn't be just dismissed because they haven't got titles after their names...

ISAW wrote: »

I again refer you to "shifting the burden of evidence" and "proving a negative" you will find
them listed under "logical fallacy"

i refer you back to the inital claim on this thread made about ADD ADHD and addicition/risks.I did not make them.Yes i provided links(that worked and didn't intail buying a book to read the conclusion)to support those claims made...
but again this thread is not about shifting the burden of evidence, proving a negative, or logical fallacys.

and i'm still not buying your books.

stevoslice

ISAW wrote: »

Your evidence is anecdotal. Ill accept your word about yourself but not as a spokesman for others! You claim people who are interested in recreational use are very interested in doing volunteer work. I doubt you can produce any evidence that this cohort are more caring than non recreational drug users.

Its no more anecdotal than your claim that stoners don't volunteer or contribute freely to society.

Any evidence? And the point I made was "if it could be done by removing the high element would stoners still be for it?"

Look for 'bbc horizons - the evil weed?'
Unless you don't believe thats a good enough reference.
My point was, the high/painkilling effect are the same thing. There is no point answering that question because it is impossible to seperate the two, hence why pharmas haven't a cannabis based painkiller on the market after decades of research.

Corsendonk

thebhoy wrote: »

Look for 'bbc horizons - the evil weed?'
Unless you don't believe thats a good enough reference.
My point was, the high/painkilling effect are the same thing. There is no point answering that question because it is impossible to seperate the two, hence why pharmas haven't a cannabis based painkiller on the market after decades of research.

How would you feel about using a genetically modified form if they could separate the high from the medicial properties? Lots of GM research into tobacco plants as a way to deliver medicinal properties so why not move it on to cannabis. Just throwing the idea out there.

stevoslice

Corsendonk wrote: »

How would you feel about using a genetically modified form if they could separate the high from the medicial properties? Lots of GM research into tobacco plants as a way to deliver medicinal properties so why not move it on to cannabis. Just throwing the idea out there.

If it was possible it would be done, the way thc affects us is by attaching itself to receptors in the brain, when there, it regulates and slows the electrochemical impulses, resulting in the numbness of being 'stoned' and also the painkilling effect.

In answer to your query i wouldn't so much be against it, but i feel it is unnecessary given my stance towards cannabis. To me it is a versatile medicine that can be grown by anyone for very little cost, to turn that simplicity into a money maker for pharmas is not needed in my opinion. Unless of course the researchers were willing to let the modified plants be grown by anyone at no cost or with no licensing fee, but thats not very likely.

Edit: Of course money going to pharmas would be better than money going to criminals, but if cannabis was simply legalised then that would not be a problem.

ordinarywoman

there is some reserch being done into the male plant and making cbd.cbn medicinal oil...without the high, wouldn't have the same pain killing effect but helpfull none the less

DublinWriter

thebhoy wrote: »

There is no point answering that question because it is impossible to seperate the two, hence why pharmas haven't a cannabis based painkiller on the market after decades of research.

Colour me simple, but isn't that because they can't patient THC due to the fact that it's a naturally occurring compound?

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

maybe the stoners you know dont...but based on your previous reference to the stoners thqat you know that doesn't surprise me..

My DEFINITION of "stoners" being people who want to get stoned. That is their main end goal. Not helping sick people but getting stoned themselves.

.but just like you have said to me 'dont judge the book by the cover'
(that you sugested i buy)...

I never stated that! furthermore I suggested you might be interested in a particular book yes and I knew it had pro cannabis leanings. But it is properly done research with preperly presented references and not traveller's tales as most of these pro cannabis sites seem to be.

you prejudged me using your own experience..you made assumptions.

No. Quiote clearly you have before and since stated you want cannabis legalised. You want it legalised for recreational use. Yet you keep stating how good it would be for medical use. why not just campaign to have medical use then? If you don't then you are for recreational use and that is your main goal.

Now based on my experience of stoners i know(both medicinal users and recreational users), many if not all of them take time out of their busy lives to do vocational work...hippies and stoners like to spread the love and compassion...

again "ancedote! "based on my opinion" isn't proper research! forgive me but I just dont believe recreational use cannabis users are more socially contributing then non cannabis users.

My point was that i want canabis legalised in whatever way possible..

Exactly. The "medical use" is a smoke screen!
You want legal recreational cannabis. You are not happy just to have medical use.

..this was discussed on a thread before in conspirecy theories...but i would like to point out that there are just a few people that may disagree with your opinion...
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/59

conclusion: Cannabinoids may therefore offer a therapeutic option

Hardly conclusive?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046

Which states:

In conclusion, further investigations are needed to elucidate the function of endocannabinoids as immunosuppressant and antiproliferative/cytotoxic agents.

Hardly conclusive?

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/24/8826?ijkey=951f5f9d238bdf059cf30ee2be3a5a31aaf2b094

The results suggest that cellular 2-AG, acting through the CB1 receptor, is an endogenous inhibitor of invasive prostate cancer cells.

Of theisa only CB 1 is cannabis related.

Studies have implicated endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors in tumorigenesis.

Note "implicated" not "Shown"
And if you look at the studies referred they are in rat brain tissue and dogs intestines not humans!

there has been significant reserch done on multiple types of cancer with canabinoids,endocanibinoids,and thc...

really? where? so for Ive come acrooss a single paper in this thread which may be of interest.

and if you looked at Granny Strom Crows list...link provded on page 35 and page 45 of this thread you'd have seen the work that has been compiled for prostate cancer, gilioma brain cancer, breast cancer to name but a few you would have seen these too..

To which particular research on that list do you refer?

and two of the you tube links are medical professors discusing endocannibinoids in cancer reserch...also a few pages back....

Look up "argument from authority" To WHAT research do they refer?

and keeping medicinal mj as an illegal substance is earning how much again,and those people who are using marijuana medicinally who are not entitled to the medical card...where is it that they must resort to get their marijuana from??

No1 But you are back to harping on about medicinal use now when

1. You havent shown a convincing argument for medicanal successes.
2. You have proposed no medical or legal protocol for medicinal implementation and regulation.
3. You have not stated you are happy to have medicinal use for starters but still have no free recreational use in spite of being shown refernces to research suggesting psychotic effects and other possible harmfull effects.

there you go assuming again...

Based on what you stated!

all i want to do is get the word out that there is a lot more to this plant than meets the eye,

If that was true then good for you but it clearly isnt true. You lready stated you want legal recreational use and not just a discussion about possible benefits to medicine.

as i said i have witnessed first hand that this plant is increadibly benificial in multiple diseases, with low toxicity, few(benifical) side effects, and there has never been a recorded death by overdose of marijuana...

Nor by other psychotic drugs. Nor psychodelics possibly. Shoudl we therefore legalise LSD or mushrooms?

30 paracetamol taken at the one time can give you perminant liver damage. http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpic9.html
You can buy that in any small shop/supermarket in the country.

You can also buy apples the seeds of which contain cynide. Il bet you wont be chewing any pips in a hurry now.

But as I have stated other drugs being harmful is a reason to ban them as well. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is a weak argument to say that because some dangerous drug is available that is a reason to legalise another drug!

This thread is about cannabis being legalised in the hope of helping a country heal from a recession, can it make money?....yes it can.

But cocaine and heroine can make more . so should we legalise them?

Can it be benificial medicinally?i believe it can.

As can opiates but they are highly regulated.

Do i want to buy any of your books?...no i dont.

Remain ignorant if you wish. and you dont have to buy them. Just read them.

ISAW

Corsendonk wrote: »

How would you feel about using a genetically modified form if they could separate the high from the medicial properties? Lots of GM research into tobacco plants as a way to deliver medicinal properties so why not move it on to cannabis. Just throwing the idea out there.

I quoted this earlier. It has been done in Ireland where the other uses for Hemp e.g. cloth, paper, ropes were harnessed by growing low TCH yield crops.

Oh_Noes wrote: »

The guy is basically trying to argue that if you have an opinion or personal experience then you're biased and your argument is invalid.

No the guy is trying to argue that you opinion is just that! You can't make it into FACT no matter how you dress it up! Personal experience and anecdote is notoriously unreliable.
And the argument may well be valid but based on a false premise. furthermore you need to be able to show what evidence there is that it is valid!

He wants articles from scholarly journals,

they would be the pinnacle of trustworthy sources. they might also be wrong but at least the people working in that field review the publication. But they dont have to be journal publications. Any proper research is acceptable.

anyone with academic experience in disciplines that aren't "hard science" knows that evidence changes from year to year with the evolution of culture.

so what? The "science will show i am right" argument is as sound as "free beer tomorrow"

Why the mods haven't banned this joker for hi-jacking and spamming a valid thread? I don't know.

Please don't back seat mod. If you have a complaint about me send it in.
As i will of you.
Others have claimed all sorts of benefits for cannabis. When asked for evidence they fall very short of providing the masses of evidence they claim.
Dont blaim me or call me a "joker" or troll for that!

Can we get back to discussing why Cannabis should or shouldn't be legalised?

Which is exactly what I was doing!
What is your argument that it should/should not be legalised and where is your evidence?

Erected Bosco

i am a drug lord and
i agree:)

RichieC

Erected Bosco wrote: »

i am a drug lord and
i agree:)

Why would a drug lord agree? :P

ISAW:

A: Stop shouting and acting exasperated with people.
B: Please drop the whole, "You need to present evidence." Enough of it has been posted.
C: Stop with your one line retorts. They are mind-numbingly difficult to follow.
Please cut down the use of exclamation marks. They are headache inducing.