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

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

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

.
what i said was i want Canabis legalised/decriminalised...i have been campaining for medicinal use...every post i have made. Your opinion of a stoner is someone who takes marijuana to get high...my opinon of a stoner is someone who takes marijuana.And as you have stated personal opinion doesnt matter..

ISAW wrote: »

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.l

.

ISAW wrote: »

i never said that cannabis users are more socially contributing than non canabis users. i said that many of the canabis users i know do socially contribute...but again according to you your opinion does not matter...

ISAW wrote: »

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

.refer above please..

ISAW wrote: »

conclusion: Cannabinoids may therefore offer a therapeutic option

Hardly conclusive?



Which states:

Hardly conclusive?



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.


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

Yes it may be theraputic....i haven't found any evidence to support your red herring opinion....and neither have you...

...i supported my opinion with the Oxford Journal for Cancer Reserch and The American Association for Cancer Reserch....

ISAW wrote: »

To which particular research on that list do you refer?

As has been stated before Granny Storm Crows list is done in alphabetical order, therefore these links can be found under 'c'...for cancer...and then alphabetical for the different types of cancer...so it would start on breast cancer, i am not going to link it again...and for such a learned person as yourself, you should not require such spoon feeding.

ISAW wrote: »

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

Click the link then...again asking for spoon feeding...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkl0zIl72c
Dr.Raphael Mechoulam discuses medical canabis as a cancer cure.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg

Dr. Robert Melamede PHD, discusses canabis and canabinoids as a cancer cure...

ISAW wrote: »

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

just because i do not wish to read what you think i should read does not make me ignorant....to suggest otherwise appears quite arrogant.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

.
what i said was i want Canabis legalised/decriminalised...i have been campaining for medicinal use...every post i have made. Your opinion of a stoner is someone who takes marijuana to get high...my opinon of a stoner is someone who takes marijuana.And as you have stated personal opinion doesnt matter..

no it doesn't. But definition does. clearly as defined by me when I use the term "stoner" I was not referring to medical use and have stated that on several occasions. I explained this when you claimed I was using a deragotory term against medical use. I was not.

ISAW wrote: »

i never said that cannabis users are more socially contributing than non canabis users.

I stated that recreational cannabis users probably can't be shown to be more caring than non users. I stated it because the social argument was made about cannabis not causing death or violent behaviour. this was used to introduce the idea of a sort of "hippi culture2 where cannabis users are presented as more caring than others. While I accept the non violent comparison to other drugs, there is evidence of psychotic effect and causing apathy and depression. Such people are not likely to be more socially involved. so "cannibis shoud be legalised because it will create a better society" is a weak argument.

i said that many of the canabis users i know do socially contribute...but again according to you your opinion does not matter...

Of couorse that matters and they should be respected for their contrabution. Are they all recreational users only? I am surprised! However, what matters (from a "legalise for social good" point of view) is whether you can show this is true for recreational users in general.

.refer above please..


Yes it may be theraputic....i haven't found any evidence to support your red herring opinion....and neither have you...

...i supported my opinion with the Oxford Journal for Cancer Reserch

Which stated in it's conclusion: Cannabinoids may therefore offer a therapeutic option. i.e. it didn't constiture proof but that they may be worth investigating

Your reference: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/59

and The American Association for Cancer Reserch....

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

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

Of these two only CB 1 is cannabis related.

In relation to CB1 it says studies have implicated... Note "implicated" not "Shown"
And if you look at the studies referred they are in rat brain tissue and dogs intestines not research done in humans!

As has been stated before Granny Storm Crows list is done in alphabetical order, therefore these links can be found under 'c'...for cancer...

Bring them on. And you can show what they say and Ill go through them one by one and we will see what they say about cannabis being good for society. I am quite happy to support medical use when I see the evidence. But in spite of scant support for medical use i have seen nothing which argues for widespread social use.

and then alphabetical for the different types of cancer...so it would start on breast cancer, i am not going to link it again...and for such a learned person as yourself, you should not require such spoon feeding.

Nor should you but I'll show you again. If you cl;aim it is is for you to make the case!


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html
http://www.fallacies.info/burdenofproof.html

Click the link then...again asking for spoon feeding...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkl0zIl72c
Dr.Raphael Mechoulam discuses medical canabis as a cancer cure.

this is entirely about medical use and has nothing on social good.

This begins with "evidence is ancedotal"
within 53 seconds you have "evidence might show"

By 1:30 it goes to the Israeli discoverer of THC

1:51 discusses 40 years of research of effect of THC on "people and lab animals"
No reference given to haw many publications on people.

at 2:30 takes a particular case. Certainly stoners are not interested in this tye of use. It moves on 3:25 to the central issue medical use!

I have never argued against medical use.

This is the first time you offered a clarification as to what that video proves.
Now what in particular do you assert is evidence form her that cancer can be cured? where in particular does it offer evidence and not opinion?

How is it an argument for social use?

And again i refer you to "argument from authority"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg

Dr. Robert Melamede PHD, discusses canabis and canabinoids as a cancer cure...

0:46 and 1:06 says "in experimental situations" and explains what this means.
i.e. that in tissue cultures, lab rats etc it can be shown cannabinoods effect cancer.
This is fairly basic stuff. I am not against it and it should be developed but like any drug you don't just go from the test tube and say "well then people should have free use of this drug"

just because i do not wish to read what you think i should read does not make me ignorant....to suggest otherwise appears quite arrogant.

I didn't say you were ignorant. i referred to a logical fallacy "argument from ignorance"

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Need I point to the charter:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055516094

Glad you read the charter.

Maybe you missed this part?

Charter wrote:

The moderators will not discuss their moderating in the Politics threads. If you wish to discuss moderation, there is one specific thread to do so here. This is the only thread in this forum where moderation may be discussed. If you wish to discuss an issue with a moderator privately or directly, either PM the moderators, or take it to the Helpdesk forum.

Or maybe this part:

Charter wrote:

This forum is for discussion and debate, so again, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and may ban you.

ISAW wrote:

If I have to keep pointing out that opinion is not fact and something has not (oops I nearly used caps) been supported as claimed, or some similar point, how do you suggest I emphasise that?

The English language is so vast, that when properly used, emphasis may be discovered through words rather than exclamation marks. They really are incredibly annoying to read.

This is the last time I will discuss my moderation methods on this thread. You have been warned, please heed the warning.

Your friendly neighbourhood mod,

Papa

Technoprisoner

ill start this post pointing out that i am not a smoker

but....
I think the op could be correct. I read recently that Holland is bringing in a new government who are anti cannabis and want rid of the coffee shops. If this is correct where are the cannabis smokers of europe going to go for a weekend away? We are right next door to probably Hollands biggest tourists so makes sense.

It could bring the tourism industry back from being on its knees. bring euro's back into our shops,pubs,hotels,airports etc.

take a look at iceland. they told the imf where to stick there bail out and they are pulling out of the recession. One of the things they did to help was offer the likes of rapidshare and other file sharing websites a safe haven. Smart move if you ask me and not the most ethical out there

ISAW

Technoprisoner wrote: »

I think the op could be correct. I read recently that Holland ...

take a look at iceland. ...Smart move if you ask me and not the most ethical out there

Fair points. But Ill direct you to the counter argument. emulating holland/ amsterdam suggests also emulating the other drugs and prostitution. dublin has already had the "hen party/stag party" problems and that was small scale compared to what the OP was proposing.

Iceland is different to Ireland. They let the banks fail. Ireland had speculation but also had large personal savings. all personal savings would also have disappeared with the other bad debts if we did what they did. Ireland's problem was driven on internal property market speculation and not in buying foreign derivatives.

Let us take the extreme case : do you really think that "legalise all drugs" is a valid way out of the economic problems Ireland has? That we should adopt unethical means to facilitate economic problems?

ordinarywoman

i refuse to continue this discussion,with you isaw.

you do not appear to have any real opinions on the matter of canabis being legalised for medicinal use or recreational use.
I have backed up my opinions with relevant links...

Your red herring opinion...found any evidence yet???

Granny Storm Crow's list- July 2009


CANCER- BREAST

Anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation
The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation — PNAS

Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation
Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation -- Melck et al. 141 (1): 118 -- Endocrinology

Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma
Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma -- Ligresti et al. 318 (3): 1375 -- Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics

9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer through Cdc2 Regulation
{Delta}9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer Cells through Cdc2 Regulation -- Caffarel et al. 66 (13): 6615 -- Cancer Research

Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies
IACM-Bulletin

THC and prochlorperazine effective in reducing vomiting in women following breast surgery
IACM-Bulletin

Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth
Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth, Study Says: The Hempire - [cannabis, london]

�Medical Marijuana� Takes On New Meaning for Metastatic Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer - “Medical Marijuana” Takes On New Meaning for Metastatic Breast Cancer



JunD is involved in the antiproliferative effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on human breast cancer cells
JunD is involved in the antiproliferative effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on human breast cancer cells.

Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer
Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer - washingtonpost.com


CANCER- CERVICAL


Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells
Pot Slows Cancer in Test Tube]

CANCER- COLORECTAL[/U]

Anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells
The endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells: a possible role for cyclooxygenase 2 -- Patsos et al. 54 (12): 1741 -- Gut



Marijuana takes on colon cancer
Marijuana takes on colon cancer - health - 01 August 2008 - New Scientist

Cannabis compound clue to colon cancer
Cannabis compound clue to colon cancer - health - 06 August 2008 - New Scientist

Cannabis-Linked Cell Receptor Might Help Prevent Colon Cancer
HealthScout-Consumer Health News, Information and Resources Updated Daily-Cancer-Cannabis-Linked Cell Receptor Might Help Prevent Colon Cancer
CANCER- GLIOMA/ BRAIN

Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol
Short News November 9th 3002

Cancer Killer
Latest News - U.S. War on Drugs Stalling Mind-Blowing Research into Pot's Cancer-Healing Properties

Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas
Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas -- Bl�zquez et al. 64 (16): 5617 -- Cancer Research



Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.
Clinical Studies and Case Reports

Cannabidiol triggers caspase activation and oxidative stress in human glioma cells.
iHOP - The non-psychoactive cannabidiol triggers caspase activation and oxidative stress in human glioma cells.

Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels

THC tested against brain tumour in pilot clinical study
IACM-Bulletin

THC inhibits cell cycle progression in human glioblastoma multiforme cells by downregulation of E2F1 in human glioblastoma multiforme cells
Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression by downregulation of E2F1 in human glioblastoma multiforme cells.

Down-regulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 in gliomas
Down-regulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 in gliomas: a new marker of cannabinoid antitumoral activity?

Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression.

Anti-Tumor Effects
Anti-Tumor Effects

Cannabinoids Induce Cancer Cell Proliferation via Tumor Necrosis Factor {alpha}-Converting Enzyme (TACE/ADAM17)-Mediated Transactivation of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor
Cannabinoids Induce Cancer Cell Proliferation via Tumor Necrosis Factor {alpha}-Converting Enzyme (TACE/ADAM17)-Mediated Transactivation of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor -- Hart et al. 64 (6): 1943 -- Cancer Research

Marijuana ingredient may reduce tumours-study
Reuters AlertNet - Marijuana ingredient may reduce tumours-study

Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells
Journal of Clinical Investigation -- Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells

Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism

Targeting astrocytomas and invading immune cells with cannabinoids: a promising therapeutic avenue.
Unbound MEDLINE | Targeting astrocytomas and invading immune cells with cannabinoids: a promising therapeutic avenue. Journal article


i dont not intend on upsetting people, or boring people...but just to prove a point that there is more than one relevant link in regard to cancer....i have only stopped at glioma, as there is another 11 types of cancer listed on the Granny Storm Crows list(already linked on pages 35 and 45).Feel free to question every one...because when you have taken the time to read them as i have it may just change your red herring opinion...

If these links help one single person who reads them...or one person is interested enough to click on Granny Storm Crows list...then having this discussion was worth it, in my opinion...

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Fair points. But Ill direct you to the counter argument. emulating holland/ amsterdam suggests also emulating the other drugs and prostitution. dublin has already had the "hen party/stag party" problems and that was small scale compared to what the OP was proposing.

Iceland is different to Ireland. They let the banks fail. Ireland had speculation but also had large personal savings. all personal savings would also have disappeared with the other bad debts if we did what they did. Ireland's problem was driven on internal property market speculation and not in buying foreign derivatives.

Let us take the extreme case : do you really think that "legalise all drugs" is a valid way out of the economic problems Ireland has? That we should adopt unethical means to facilitate economic problems?

To be fair, the poster did not say, "legalise all drugs". He said "legalise cannabis". And by saying, "emulating holland/ amsterdam suggests also emulating the other drugs and prostitution" You are using a strawman argument. Again. Just because you legalise cannabis does not mean you have to legalise other drugs and prostitution. Just because you take one idea from another country, does not mean you have to take all of their bad ideas too.

Ordinary woman:

Please stop posting so many links with no discussion as per the charter. Please remember this is a discussion forum first and foremost. Not a library for links.

Your friendly neighbourhood mod,

Papa

Technoprisoner

ISAW wrote: »

Fair points. But Ill direct you to the counter argument. emulating holland/ amsterdam suggests also emulating the other drugs and prostitution. dublin has already had the "hen party/stag party" problems and that was small scale compared to what the OP was proposing.

Iceland is different to Ireland. They let the banks fail. Ireland had speculation but also had large personal savings. all personal savings would also have disappeared with the other bad debts if we did what they did. Ireland's problem was driven on internal property market speculation and not in buying foreign derivatives.

Let us take the extreme case : do you really think that "legalise all drugs" is a valid way out of the economic problems Ireland has? That we should adopt unethical means to facilitate economic problems?

id reckon hotels and bars around dublin would not be complaining about hen/stag problems now!!

and iceland really isnt that different to ireland...we had the opportunity to default on our loans but that decision was made for us by our repesentatives. but thats a different argument

i never mentioned anything about legalising every drug did i? i wonder how much dole money is spent each week buying cannabis anyways? think of all that lovely tax brian cowen and his merry men could be rolling around in lol. Ireland cant keep on living in the 1900's...time to grow up everyone and smell the cannabis lol

ordinarywoman

noted papa...my apologies.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

To be fair, the poster did not say, "legalise all drugs". He said "legalise cannabis".

Along dutch/Amsterdam lines. Where there are associated prostitution and other drugs?
Copenhagen is similar. It isnt clear that cannabis is doing anything to help their economy and certainly isn't making Amsterdam a more moral place.

And by saying, "emulating holland/ amsterdam suggests also emulating the other drugs and prostitution" You are using a strawman argument. Again. Just because you legalise cannabis does not mean you have to legalise other drugs and prostitution. Just because you take one idea from another country, does not mean you have to take all of their bad ideas too.

Good - take free market economics of legal substances and leave the "cannabis is a social boon if it is made free for recreational use" then eh?



Need i reiterate?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69586121&postcount=617

Unsupported claim that crime reduced in holland due to cannabis use.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69596170&postcount=621
But some people believe it is wrong and that is the reason the law exists in the first place. It is your OPINION that it isn't morally wrong but you can say the same of child sex or prostitution or slapping children. some people believe all of those things are wrong but most believe ( with the exception of slapping) that they are wrong enough to make them illegal irrespective of whether or not they make money.

and in 616:
Im not opposed to soft drugs by the way it is just one cant conflate moral and economic arguments.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

noted papa...my apologies.

i was quite happy to discuss your links and I respect your contribution so far.


But if you post them post a comment or excerpt on each one

1. that shows you have read and understand the link
2. that supports the point you are trying to make.

Just spamming out links won't make any case. they have to refer to your point and have to support the point. All the better if they are reliable links like peer review journals but they don't have to be.

NB this is not an attempt at moderation it is advice on what evidence is acceptable in debate and how it should be used.

ISAW

Technoprisoner wrote: »

id reckon hotels and bars around dublin would not be complaining about hen/stag problems now!!

so "my hotel business is doing so bad i would rather prostitutes and drug dealers rather than no business at all" that is a bit of a slippery slope isn't it?

and iceland really isnt that different to ireland...

It is! Other then uncontrolled speculation the basis of the debt if different. Irish speculation was of property developers borrowing to say for property development. , Iceland's banks have financed their expansion partly by deposits from outside Iceland

we had the opportunity to default on our loans but that decision was made for us by our repesentatives. but thats a different argument

Indeed. so we can argue about it elsewhere.

i never mentioned anything about legalising every drug did i?

Nope. Which ones do you suggest we begin with? And how will they help the economy?

i wonder how much dole money is spent each week buying cannabis anyways? think of all that lovely tax brian cowen and his merry men could be rolling around in lol.

Who is to say there would be any tax money! suppose you introduce a tax. As people get it illegally now without tax what is to stop them on legalisation doing the exact same?

Ireland cant keep on living in the 1900's...time to grow up everyone and smell the cannabis lol

this is the "progress = deregulation and legalisation of free trade" argument.
Need I refer you to Icelandic, Irish and American banks? One thing that was a common factor was deregulation of controls on them!

If Holland puts their hand in the fire we should do it too?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Along dutch/Amsterdam lines. Where there are associated prostitution and other drugs?

Honestly, one does not equal the other. You are jumping to conclusions which I believe is a habit you do not like.

For the last time.

Legalising cannabis does not equal legalising abortion/hard drugs/prostitution or any other strawmen you want to throw in there. We're talking about legalising cannabis.

ISAW wrote:

Copenhagen is similar. It isnt clear that cannabis is doing anything to help their economy and certainly isn't making Amsterdam a more moral place.

I honestly didn't realise Cannabis was legal in Copenhagen, as for what that has to with Amsterdam being a more moral place, that may have more to do with their prostitution laws than their cannabis laws.

ISAW wrote:

Good - take free market economics of legal substances and leave the "cannabis is a social boon if it is made free for recreational use" then eh?

eh... Yeah.

ISAW wrote: »

But if you post them post a comment or excerpt on each one
1. that shows you have read and understand the link
2. that supports the point you are trying to make.
Just spamming out links won't make any case. they have to refer to your point and have to support the point. All the better if they are reliable links like peer review journals but they don't have to be.
NB this is not an attempt at moderation it is advice on what evidence is acceptable in debate and how it should be used.

That is definitely back seat moderating and will not be tolerated.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

ISAW wrote: »

Along dutch/Amsterdam lines. Where there are associated prostitution and other drugs?[/QUOTE}

Honestly, one does not equal the other. You are jumping to conclusions which I believe is a habit you do not like.

...

Legalising cannabis does not equal legalising abortion/hard drugs/prostitution or any other strawmen you want to throw in there. We're talking about legalising cannabis.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69586110&postcount=616

And as for the "legalise it so we can tax it" if it is wrong it is wrong and making an economic argument is facile. You may as well say "legalise cannibalism so we can cut down on poor people being a drain on the state because they have to get dole money for food by having them eat their own kids"
...
There is evidence legal soft drugs encourages use of other drugs. It is a bit like saying "legalise knives and gun crime will decrease" If knives are wrong why legalise them and if you legalise them it wont cut down on harder violence.

I honestly didn't realise Cannabis was legal in Copenhagen, as for what that has to with Amsterdam being a more moral place, that may have more to do with their prostitution laws than their cannabis laws.

It is legal in neither but both have similar cultures. Christiania and Amsterdams Red light district are similar in culture. Except Christiana is a hippi culture and amsterdam is capitalist.

That is definitely back seat moderating and will not be tolerated.

I am not telling anyone what to post. I am directing them to how a source is commonly interpreted as being a good source or a bad one. It isn't a question of my opinion.
Citation quality is judged by such standards and the poster may not be aware of that fact.
i am not telling them what they may or may not post, just that the level of impact as judged in publication is done according to certain standards whether or not you or I agree with them. they are completely free to ignore my advice and it isn't binding on them in any way. It should not be necessary for me to issue a disclaimer with every piece of advice so the advice is not taken up as an instruction which must be followed.

ISAW banned for 3 days for discussing moderating matters on-thread after a warning was issued to him 2 hours ago.

Your friendly neighbourhood mod,

Papa

And now the attention gets turned to Spain

I wonder how long these clubs will stay open for? It's a strange idea. Won't do much for tourism (If you have to pay €120 a year and go in front of a panel) But it will cater to a certain clientèle.

I don't know how they are planning on keeping it going as "Supplying the club is another problem, as dealing in cannabis is illegal."

But on the positive side, "Some judges have ordered police to give confiscated cannabis back to clubs. "They have told them to return it on the basis that there is no threat to public health.""

I still can't see it catching on in Ireland though.

TheReverend

Papa Smut wrote: »

And now the attention gets turned to Spain

I wonder how long these clubs will stay open for? It's a strange idea. Won't do much for tourism (If you have to pay €120 a year and go in front of a panel) But it will cater to a certain clientèle.

I don't know how they are planning on keeping it going as "Supplying the club is another problem, as dealing in cannabis is illegal."

But on the positive side, "Some judges have ordered police to give confiscated cannabis back to clubs. "They have told them to return it on the basis that there is no threat to public health.""

I still can't see it catching on in Ireland though.

Will be a long time before it is available openly here

Technoprisoner

yet again you mention drug dealers and prostitutes. I did not say these things should also be legalised!!! the debate is should cannabis be legalised?

you mention icelands deposits from outside sources...think about all those outseide sources bringing in all those lovely euros which more than likely be the uk. We spend enough Irish euros in the uk as it is....why not try get some of them back

of course tax will be being paid on cannabis.....never heard of vat?

how can you genarlise the sale of cannabis with the banks?? i think you are clutching at straws now.

looking forward to seeing your reply

Technoprisoner, it's considered quite bad manners to address points to a person serving a ban, as they cannot reply. Just as it is to gloat over their ban. Please don't do it again.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

i was quite happy to discuss your links and I respect your contribution so far.


But if you post them post a comment or excerpt on each one

1. that shows you have read and understand the link
2. that supports the point you are trying to make.

Just spamming out links won't make any case. they have to refer to your point and have to support the point. All the better if they are reliable links like peer review journals but they don't have to be.

NB this is not an attempt at moderation it is advice on what evidence is acceptable in debate and how it should be used.

I have read and understood each and every link i have provided, and each and every one is in opposition to your red herring opinion,therefore supporting my point that its not a red herring.
Yes a lot of the reserch is done on lab rats and mice...as while the human body differs...the cancer cells do not, hense these tests are significant.
Yes there is a need for more reserch on the matter...but early tests prove very hopefull.
Currently there in no cure for cancer...treatments yes.Canabis has hope at least.

this debate is about canabis...not on how i debate, or weither i do enough voluntary work, or weither my morals are high standing enough, or weither i read books.
My apology was for Papa Smut,and to anyone who was bored by your need for me to provide more evidence when it had already been supplied on two previous occasions.
your 'evidence' however is somewhat lacking..

And your advice?thanks but no thanks...i think i proved my point without it.

I am by no means gloating papa smut and apologise for adressing this as isaw is away, i had it posted and then saw your post above.

As far as the cannabis clubs in Spain...i dont see why it wouldn't become a 'thing' here....there are wine connisures(sp?) clubs, golf clubs, i mean most golf clubs would have alcohol licences, why couldn't they have cannabis connisurs club, and canabis licence?...there are many varieties of canabis to chose from...the 120 euro would be very hard to come by these days for most people but is still only ten euros a month, most people would spend more than that on their prefered social activities...not extortionate prices really, but i do believe however that it is still a long way off here in Ireland more's the pity.

Technoprisoner

ok gloat removed

Johnboy1951

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.

The above raises a point I have not seen addressed very much in this thread - maybe I missed it, and if so apologise.

I have a great fear of depending on a lot of the allegedly 'trustworthy sources'.
As I understand it, most research these days into such things as discussed - medicinal benefits of mj and so on - is funded in part or in whole by the pharmaceutical industry.
So forgive me my scepticism but I believe 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.
Also being aware that big pharma have been trying desperately to develop a suitable 'medicine' which would duplicate some of the effects of the mj plant, I am very wary of accepting without serious question, the findings of research so funded.

It does leave me with a problem though.
On what can I rely for accurate and unbiased research results?

Is a body of disparate and (apparently) un-associated anecdotal evidence any less reliable than corporate funded research?

I am in no way trying to divert the discussion with any theory about corporate responsibility etc.
I am trying to voice my personal view of how 'independent' most of the research is/is not ........ and in truth I worry about most of it.

Where corporate interests take precedence over the interests of society, the people get the wrong end of the stick.
I worry that may be the case with most of the corporate funded research into the mj plant.

Maybe I should spell it out ...... I worry that ......
the negative effects of the mj plant might be emphasised in results so that the present status continues.
That would allow more time for the corporate sector to develop something patentable that mimics the beneficial effects of the plant, which could then be sold with the claim that those negative effects have been eliminated or greatly reduced.

I believe the danger of corporate manipulation should not be dismissed out of hand.

***

This is just an opinion on one aspect of the situation, which greatly concerns me.

Elevator

/\ nail on the head there Johnboy

for years the pharma were supporting the demonising on weed and more to the point it's most active ingredient thc but now they've got sativex on the market (synthesised thc afaik) it's ok now!?!

ordinarywoman

thats one of the reasons i feel rick simpsons story is very valid...because when a lot of anacdotal stories come together that all point to the same thing...should that considered evidence?as i said just because someone hasn't a phd, or have a doctorite, or have funding for reserch...doesn't mean their experience isn't valid.

but then that leads to conspiricy theories again....wasn't mj demonised specifically in refer madness around the time that paracetamol was introduced..

ISAW

Before I comment I feel I have to issue the following disclaimer. I am referring to generally accepted rules of debate and not requirements of boards.ie When I state “I don't have to” or “you have to” these are comments about what people accept as standards of debate or logical fallacies and not requirements of boards.ie. I am not telling you what you may or may not post. You may post “Dublin is not the capital of Ireland” for example. It will not be factually true but you may post it and it does not require my permission to do so. Nor can I stop you doing so.

People are advocating illegal criminal behavior and I think it is wise to point out that there is a reason for having laws. I am not against changing them but at least provide good reasons to do so. Saying “cannabis can arrest tumor growth” isn't a valid reason for free medical use let alone free social use.

ordinarywoman wrote: »

i refuse to continue this discussion,with you isaw.

Suit yourself. That is your prerogative. Running away from the issues won't make your claims true.

you do not appear to have any real opinions on the matter of canabis being legalised for medicinal use or recreational use

I don't have to!
I am not the one claiming it should be legalised. I have told you what “burden of evidence “ means.
If you care to ignore that it still won't mean you have proved your case.

In any case I have taken a position. But I don't have to . As I have pointed out earlier, it is just “cream on top” for me to provide counter evidence. It is for the person making the case to support their case.

I have backed up my opinions with relevant links...

which relevant links?

Granny Storm Crow's list- July 2009

What are the credentials of this source?

Apparently she is a teacher in California who used cannabis to reliever migranes and found it more preferable to legal medication (which was prescribed to her but she did not try it).
She does not have an MD or PhD so she isn't an expert in any field.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june202009/granny_crow_list_6-20-09.php

But not to worry if the evidence she offers is properly conducted scientific research and peer reviewed. And much of it is

But, as we will see, it isn't conclusive and does not in the main refer to properly conducted tests in human beings. As you will note the “further research is necessary “ is quite prevalent. I'm not saying that naturally occurring drugs don't offer solutions. After all about 25 per cent of medicines come from plants. But catchall drugs offered as a panacea for everything from migraine to MS to ADHD (both claimes and others were mentioned in this discussion. ADHD in itself isn't understood whether or not to be an actual condition) are just not supported by evidence. Furthermore with legal drugs long term tests are undertaken for specific illness and and side effects are recorded.

Psychotic side effects of cannabis are known and little has been mentioned in the hippi/stoner “catchall panacea” argument. Finally, all of the pro cannabis evidence offered here is medical but the campaign is for recreational use. Medicines are controlled and regulated but the pro cannabis lobby want it freely available with no regulation at all. Now , even this may be acceptable but it has not been justified.

Simply cutting and pasting references does not suffice to support a claim. One has to show they have read and understood the source and refer to the particular part of that source that supports the claim. I shall endeavour to do that with the same sources provided with respect to the counter claim.

CANCER- BREAST

Anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation
The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation — PNAS

This is a tissue culture research i.e. in vitro, which concludes:
These data suggest that anandamide blocks human breast cancer cell proliferation through CB1-like receptor-mediated inhibition of endogenous prolactin action at the level of prolactin receptor.

NB – done on tissues and “suggest” not “prove withing an acceptable medical level of probability”


Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation

Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation -- Melck et al. 141 (1): 118 – Endocrinology

Used: synthetic cannabinoid HU-210, 2-AG, anandamide, and its metabolically stable analogs . Not “natural” use - i.e. not the kind which you have been pushing.

Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma
Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma -- Ligresti et al. 318 (3): 1375 -- Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics

Begins: (THC) exhibits antitumor effects on various cancer cell types, but its use in chemotherapy is limited by its psychotropic activity.

i.e. admits to dangerous side effects

Concludes:
Our data support the further testing of cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich extracts for the potential treatment of cancer.

i.e. further research is necessary.

9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer through Cdc2 Regulation
{Delta}9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer Cells through Cdc2 Regulation -- Caffarel et al. 66 (13): 6615 -- Cancer Research

Begins:

little is known about the effect of cannabinoids on the cell cycle, the main process controlling cell fate.

Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies
IACM-Bulletin

Animal studies ie not in humans.

THC and prochlorperazine effective in reducing vomiting in women following breast surgery
IACM-Bulletin

The first properly published and properly conducted research in this list.
Published in American Journal of surgery 2006
Shows a statistically valid result with a blind control group
but what did they test - oral dronabinol 5 mg and rectal prochlorperazine 25 mg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol
Dronabinol is the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) for a pure isomer of THC, (-)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, that is, the main isomer in cannabis.[11] It is sold as Marinol (a registered trademark of Solvay Pharmaceuticals). Dronabinol is also marketed, sold, and distributed by PAR Pharmaceutical Companies under the terms of a license and distribution agreement with SVC pharma LP, an affiliate of Rhodes Technologies.

Administered with an anti psychotic prochlorperazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prochlorperazine
Prochlorperazine can also cause a life-threatening condition called neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS).

This might make you consider why such drug use is regulated?

Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth
Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth, Study Says: The Hempire - [cannabis, london]

assessed the anti-cancer activity of various non-psychoactive cannabinoids - including cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabichromine (CBC) - in vivo and in vitro.

Hurray! In vitro is a cell culture but in vivo is a living animal!
Here is the full source:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247.full.pdf+html

On page 3 you will find the “in vivo” was in Mice!

�Medical Marijuana� Takes On New Meaning for Metastatic Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer - “Medical Marijuana” Takes On New Meaning for Metastatic Breast Cancer

again in vitro - CBD, has been shown (in the lab) to stop the human gene Id-1 from directing cancer cells to multiply and spread.
Note also - Both researchers pointed out that CBD is non-toxic and non-psychoactive. In other words, patients wouldn’t get high taking it . The stoners won't make such a hullabaloo about wanting this legalised.

Cannabidiol may be helpful in reducing the aggressiveness of breast cancer cells
BBSNews - Study: Cannabinoid Reduces Breast Cancer Cell Aggression

Dead link

JunD is involved in the antiproliferative effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on human breast cancer cells
JunD is involved in the antiproliferative effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on human breast cancer cells.

a fairly long list of the in vitro breast cancer research listing 21 published references
Which of them is in vivo in humans?
My guess is zero!
And again all of them in medical cases usually in breast cancer.
They are with several different and artificial[/] derivatives of cannabis.
But yes Ill agree they do make a good argument for further research in medicinal use in breast cancer. Not for recreationalo use! None of them argue this case!

Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer
Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer - washingtonpost.com

As above.

CANCER- CERVICAL

Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells
Pot Slows Cancer in Test Tube]

test-tube studies suggest.

And the "in vivo" and other arguments apply to brain cancer. Except maybe even more regulation and control is necessary with brain research.

CANCER- COLORECTAL

determined the effect of anandamide on human CRC cell growth by measuring cell growth and cell death

And we are back to artificial drugs again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandamide
It is synthesized from N-arachidonoyl phosphatidylethanolamine by multiple pathways...
Anandamide is also important for implantation of the early stage embryo in its blastocyst form into the uterus. Therefore cannabinoids such as Δ9-THC might interfere with the earliest stages of human pregnancy.[7]
…
You list 18 other published sources. While I concede they show artificially cultured cannabis and artificial cannabis derivatives manufactured in the lab have a measurable effect on cancerous tissue growth, this is a long way off from isolating the particular drugs and trialling them in patients. I do think such trials may show some promise.

But

No evidence is apparent from any of your sources of cannabis use in curing particular cancers in humans
Plenty of evidence of negative side effects are apparent.

While the use as a medicine is contingent on emergent research it is at best an argument for controlled introduction as a regulated drug, one I would happily ( no pun intended) take myself.

Even accepting the above and pending medical regulation there is no evidence whatsoever offered from a socio political source as to the claims of ethical moral social economic or other benefits
through the introduction of freely available cannabis.

i dont not intend on upsetting people, or boring people...but just to prove a point that there is more than one relevant link in regard to cancer....

Relevant in what sense? There is more than one publication on research done about cannabis associated drugs ( artificially produced cannabbinoids) published in medical journals.
So what?
Is that evidence that cannabis is something which should be legalised for recreational use? NO!
Is it evidence that in some instances further research is necessary with certain derivatives of cannabis for use with certain cancers? Yes. But which further research has been carried out in people? NONE!

None as far as I can see are in administering cannabis in advance of the onset of any cancer. No such research has ever been done as far as I know. We can for example examine if smoking tobacco is hazardous to your health. No similar research exists as to whether cannabis is beneficial to health. What you have produced is that cannabis has an effect on cell growth of tumors. So does household bleach, heroin, chopping off the effected limb. Having an effect isn't sufficient. It must be tested within humans to an appreciable degree and it must exhibit detectable and acceptable or treatable side effects. As regards it being “natural” I don't think anyone really cares about that. If they can make it in the lab people will use it. Just as people can pick mushrooms but stoners if they can get ecstasy or LSD will buy it rather then follow the “natural” high. They don't want to be natural – they want to get high!

i have only stopped at glioma, as there is another 11 types of cancer listed on the Granny Storm Crows list(already linked on pages 35 and 45).Feel free to question every one...because when you have taken the time to read them as i have it may just change your red herring opinion...

I have only stopped after reading through eleven cases none of which are evidence for legalisation of cannabis!
I have read through the first two parts on breast cancer and cervical. I have shown the problems with them. I can go through every one but it isn't necessary. I think my replies to the eleven cases in the breast cancer realm apply just as equally to the cervical cancer.

I haven't read through all the brain cancer papers yet but I have posted what I believe are valid problems with the argument. Feel free to show if they indicate any in vivo or sociological research.

If these links help one single person who reads them...or one person is interested enough to click on Granny Storm Crows list...then having this discussion was worth it, in my opinion...

I think it was worth while even if someone isn't cured of cancer. Such is how science progresses.
Having “suffered” cancer and chemo therapy myself I would love to see some miracle cure and would be happy to undergo such research or to be prescribed cannabis. My main complaint on chemo was that chemo drugs just make you fell sick not “high”

I don't think people are taking a reasoned stance on this argument that is all.

And I'm not just saying peer review and scepticism is the way to go.
For example read ‘Is the scientific paper a fraud?’, by the late immunologist, Peter Medawar.

Medawar, P. (1999) ‘Is the scientific paper a fraud?’, in Scanlon, E. Hill, R. and Junker, K. (eds) Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, London, Routledge.

Just consider for a moment the traditional form of a scientific paper (incidentally, it is a form which editors themselves often insist upon). The structure of a scientific paper in the biological sciences is something like this. First, there is a section called the ‘introduction’ in which you merely describe the general field in which your scientific talents are going to be exercised, followed by a section called ‘previous work’ in which you concede, more or less graciously, that others have dimly groped towards the fundamental truths that you are now about to expound. Then a section on ‘methods’ – that is OK. Then comes the section called ‘results’. The section called ‘results’ consists of a stream of factual information in which it is considered extremely bad form to discuss the significance of the results you are getting. You have to pretend that your mind is, so to speak, a virgin receptacle, an empty vessel, for information which floods into it from the external world for no reason which you yourself have revealed. You reserve all appraisal of the scientific evidence until the ‘discussion’ section, and in the discussion you adopt the ludicrous pretence of asking yourself if the information you have collected actually means anything; of asking yourself if any general truths are going to emerge from the contemplation of all the evidence you brandished in the section called ‘results’.
Of course, what I am saying is rather an exaggeration, but there is more than a mere element of truth in it. [… ]
So to go back once again to the scientific paper: the scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries. The inductive format of the scientific paper should be discarded. The discussion which in the traditional scientific paper goes last should surely come at the beginning. The scientific facts and scientific acts should follow the discussion, and scientists should not be ashamed to admit, as many of them apparently are ashamed to admit, that hypotheses appear in their minds along uncharted byways of thought; that they are imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are indeed adventures of the mind. What, after all, is the good of scientists reproaching others for their neglect of, or indifference to, the scientific style of thinking they set such great store by, if their own writings show that they themselves have no clear understanding of it?

It isn't an option of being “for cannabis” or “against cannabis”. The point is being reasonable about it and agreeing to standards of debate and evidence which don't involve not personal attack or put downs but elevate objective and reasoned argument and not subjective relative opinion.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The above raises a point I have not seen addressed very much in this thread - maybe I missed it, and if so apologise.

I have a great fear of depending on a lot of the allegedly 'trustworthy sources'.

Whatever do you mean. Which "allegedly trustworthy" sources?

As I understand it, most research these days into such things as discussed - medicinal benefits of mj and so on - is funded in part or in whole by the pharmaceutical industry.

And most medical operations are carried out by would you believe it ....surgeons?
What is your point? Most drugs research is done by the drug manufacturers? Of course it is? You don't think the law would allow them to distribute drugs without testing them do you?

I am very wary of accepting without serious question, the findings of research so funded.

conspiracy theories are not sufficient to prove the "cannabis should be legalised" argument.

It does leave me with a problem though.
On what can I rely for accurate and unbiased research results?

Peer review journals not funded by prarmachem companies those particular drugs?
Longitudinal surveys of drug takers done by suitably qualified people?

Is a body of disparate and (apparently) un-associated anecdotal evidence any less reliable than corporate funded research?

Certainly yes! If a corporation funds research the research itself has protocols which have to be adhered to. It is a flagrant abuse of medical and academic ethics to create fake research.

I am trying to voice my personal view of how 'independent' most of the research is/is not ........ and in truth I worry about most of it.

Ill accept that in one sense no researcher is truly objective and may have a bias. We all exist to some degree in a sociopolitical domain. This can sometimes actually work in favor of a positive outcome. But experimental protocols such as "double blind" testing rule out personal bias.

the negative effects of the mj plant might be emphasised in results so that the present status continues.
That would allow more time for the corporate sector to develop something patentable that mimics the beneficial effects of the plant, which could then be sold with the claim that those negative effects have been eliminated or greatly reduced.

But if more publications come out and doctors start research and publish it the "status quo" can't remain. And if they actually do eliminate negative effect then what is wrong with that?

I believe the danger of corporate manipulation should not be dismissed out of hand.

Fair enough. But

1. Prove it is happening
2. It has not bearing on "legalise cannabis for recreational use" . It is the pharma industry not the tabacco industry.

ordinarywoman

am delighted you clicked a link.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

am delighted you clicked a link.

I think that is quite trite! What you aor I feel about the issue is beside the point. You posted a large number of links which you had not yourself shown to support your claim in any way! You claimed that my counter argumetn was a "red herring"
I believe I submitted a comprehensive review of at least the first twenty or so of these references.

NONE support the claims you have made! At the very least they support the need for further research and possible introduction of cannabis for medical use in certain circumstances. They in no way support widespread recreational use.

I believe you actually believe your own propaganda. But I also think you are capable of critically looking at your own position. Please do so. If you can't support it then why not abandon it for a more reasonable alternative.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

I think that is quite trite! What you aor I feel about the issue is beside the point. You posted a large number of links which you had not yourself shown to support your claim in any way! You claimed that my counter argumetn was a "red herring"
I believe I submitted a comprehensive review of at least the first twenty or so of these references.

trite=trite
   /traɪt/ Show Spelled[trahyt] Show IPA
–adjective, trit·er, trit·est.
1.
lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale: the trite phrases in his letter.
2.
characterized by hackneyed expressions, ideas, etc.: The commencement address was trite and endlessly long.
3.
Archaic . rubbed or worn by use.

pot callin the kettle black...
what claim did I make??
You said the 'canabis as a cancer cure' was a red herring..in post #767...

I said that there might be a few doctors and oncologists who would disagree with your red herring opinion...

ISAW wrote: »

They in no way support widespread recreational use.

i never said they did.
Again this isn't just about recreational use tho...this is about canabis as a whole.

ISAW wrote: »

I believe you actually believe your own propaganda. But I also think you are capable of critically looking at your own position. Please do so. If you can't support it then why not abandon it for a more reasonable alternative.

yes i do believe very strongly in my own 'propaganda'/opinion. Why shouldn't i?if i didn't believe it why would i bother to support it?

like what?what is the reasonable alternative??

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

3.
Archaic . rubbed or worn by use.

pot callin the kettle black...

"You too back at ya " Isn't counter argument. You are making the claims. I have already shown how I dont have to balance the argument with counter claims! YOU have to show your side is supported with ewvidence.

what claim did I make??
You said the 'canabis as a cancer cure' was a red herring..in post #767...

In that post you stated:

i do want canabis legalised what ever way i can get it, medicinal or otherwise.

and in message 789

Yes it may be theraputic....i haven't found any evidence to support your red herring opinion....and neither have you...

...i supported my opinion with the Oxford Journal for Cancer Reserch and The American Association for Cancer Reserch....

I said that there might be a few doctors and oncologists who would disagree with your red herring opinion...

And pigs might fly! What doctors? all you ahve produces is some medical evidence that artificially produced cannabis compounds arrest some cancer growths. But this is on a petri dish in a lab and not done over time on real humans.

ISAW wrote: »

They in no way support widespread recreational use.

i never said they did.
Again this isn't just about recreational use tho...this is about canabis as a whole.

Which included recreational use! And yet all of the evidence you produce related to medical use and none to recreational use? How come that?

yes i do believe very strongly in my own 'propaganda'/opinion. Why shouldn't i?if i didn't believe it why would i bother to support it?

Who am I to question whatevewr crackpot conspiracy theories you believe? What I am interested in is the sweeping objective claims you make based on such beliefs. The claims are not supported.

like what?what is the reasonable alternative??

That you admit any actual evidence you produced supports medical introduction and controlled regulation but NONE supports recreational use.