If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Scientists find that marijuana can stop aggressive cancers, once-motivated college students   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 149
    More: Spiffy, Pierre Desprez, molecular biology, metastasis, animal testing, common practice, marijuana, breast cancer, prison cells  
•       •       •

6454 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Sep 2012 at 12:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-21 11:34:37 AM

RobSeace: WeenerGord: cwick: "A lid of prevention..."

How many joints are in a lid?

Two! ... I roll big joints.


You must be from California, man!
 
2012-09-21 11:55:32 AM

missiv: Fun fact:You could put ditch weed in a cooler with dry ice, and the dry ice/CO2 would increase the level of THC as it dissipates. I guess you could call that processing.


How?
 
2012-09-21 12:00:27 PM

Jubeebee:

Cannabis can't replace the main medication I'm on. But I have a condition where I need to exercise every day to prevent my spine from fusing to my pelvis, and I cannot legally acquire a non-reactive anti-inflammatory drug that increases appetite and helps me fall asleep. That seems stupid to me.


Ya, that's pretty stupid.
 
2012-09-21 12:01:30 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Things like cancer and heart disease will eventually be a thing of the past. Then nature will find other ways to kill us in the form of diseases that we previously did not live long enough to develop. Then we will find ways to cure those diseases. Then nature will...


So?
 
2012-09-21 12:05:49 PM

blockhouse: Awful lot of zealots around here. Wake me when cannabis has been shown to prevent metastasis in actual people, not just lab rats or cells in a Petri dish.

/cancer pharmacist
//despite the hype, many of my patients don't like Marinol and prefer Remeron or Megace to boost their appetite



A good friend of mine has Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome (CVS) and was perscribed maranol for awhile, didn't work. What was the only thing that did work you ask? Smoking pot, not even fenergan (sp?) helps when he has an episode that will keep him in the hospital for weeks. His doctor will look the other way and wheel him outside to take his medicine.

The only thing that allowed my mother to eat for her last 3 cancer ridden years of her life was smoking pot.

Another friend has gastroparesis, she too is told by her doctor that he would perscribe pot if he could. When she cannot smoke (traveling, at home with her mom etc) she will lose pounds becasue she cannot eat without smoking pot.

Wake up to all of the other uses for it and to the lies perpetuated in negative propaganda.
 
2012-09-21 12:21:02 PM
What a fascinating plant.
 
2012-09-21 12:39:28 PM
Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...
 
2012-09-21 12:48:59 PM
Impossible. Weed is a Schedule 1 drug, which means no known medical value. The Federal Govt. would never lie about something like that.
 
2012-09-21 12:54:36 PM

WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.


The AMA was in full support of keeping weed legal, it was just that everything they said was completely ignored by congress, because you know, everyone in congress was a doctor back then....
 
2012-09-21 01:10:44 PM

GAT_00:
You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.


?How are you so stupid?

A side effect is just an effect of the drug. What makes one effect the "primary" effect, and all others "side" effects? Nothing.

Rogaine was originally developed as an oral blood pressure medication. When they realized that one of the "side" effects was hair growth, they turned it into a topical solution and sold it as a hair loss treatment.
 
2012-09-21 01:23:16 PM
I am hoping that (if) Obama wins and becomes a "Lame Duck President" he can finally change Cannabis from Schedule 1. If not, 3 states have legalization on the ballot so we may finally reach the turning point on this utter farce that is Federal Prohibition - Of a Plant!!. Until then, jury nullification, and making sure we get rid of the politicians who are for this "War on Plants" and also pushing to get even more states to enact medical cannabis laws will remain the only recourse of the will of the people! It is the only way for Americans to overcome the powerful lobbying interests trying to keep the "$tatus Quo" of Private Pri$ion$, Big Pharma, DEA A$$et siezures and the liquor and tobacco and timber industries. "HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!"
 
2012-09-21 01:29:22 PM
FTFA: "the compound is used to relieve anxiety and nausea, and, since it is non-psychoactive, does not cause the "high" associated with THC. "

Yeah, that high is a really sucky side effect, isn't it?
 
2012-09-21 01:34:33 PM

Weaver95: GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.

why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.


From the sound of it, you need concentrations far higher than the plant can provide, and so it's probably just cheaper and easier to synthesise if it you can. The researchers acknowledge that plant extraction could also make it harder to get the greenlights they need, but I don't think they're doing this for cynical reasons.
 
2012-09-21 01:37:19 PM
I have actually heard people claiming this for about the last 10 years.

/serious.
//they are legalization activists that I heard it from.
 
2012-09-21 01:43:17 PM

WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.


Erhm, that's not the way I learned it. What I learned was:

'Hemp' was a well-known and widely used crop in the U.S. for many years. In the 1930s, DuPont patented a process for converting wood pulp into paper; up to then, paper had been made mostly from hemp. Unable to compete with hemp economically, DuPont launched an aggressive pubic advocacy campaign against 'marijuana' and hired lobbyists to push legislation banning the demon weed.

It may seem curious that we now use the term 'marijuana' for something that was already well known by a different term, but this was deliberate. 'Marijuana' was an obscure Mexican native medicine word, and DuPont relied on that obscurity to differentiate it from hemp. Americans and their Congress being just as dumb then as they are now, Congress in 1937 banned the demon weed, unwittingly banning the very useful (and non-high-inducing) hemp along with it; many members of Congress later admitted to having been hoodwinked, and said they would not have voted to ban it if they had known it was the same plant.

What has followed has been almost entirely political, of course, and extremely stupid and counterproductive to everyone's interests. Other than DuPont, I can't imagine who actually benefits from this, other than certain especially boneheaded conservative types who manage to squeeze a little political juice out of it.
 
2012-09-21 01:48:37 PM

Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.


Are you sure?

Link
 
2012-09-21 02:00:28 PM

Weaver95: WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

there is NO reason to keep cannabis illegal. nothing valid anyways. whole lot of corrupt reasons...but nothing valid or logical. By our own standards, cannabis should be at most Schedule IV. And you could probably argue for Schedule V if you wanted to push if further.


I completely agree. It's unclear to me why it remains at Schedule I, but I assume it's mostly political; I find it hard even to find any economic reasons. From that, I surmise it's almost entirely a cultural fable, like the thing about Korean fan death -- a completely wrongheaded notion that persists only because it's so widely repeated.

I think it won't change until we get a lot more politicians who stand up and say, "Yeah, I toked up, and you know what? It was very enjoyable and didn't hurt me. I'm not embarrassed, I'm definitely not sorry, and absolutely will not apologise for my well-reasoned adult choices. More, I'm working towards decriminalisation because I don't want tomorrow's children to grow up in a nation as misguided as the one I did. We can tax it and make money, instead of pouring gobs of money down a rathole trying to control a harmless damn weed that grows, like, *everywhere,* while diverting our law enforcement from duties actually worth their time and our money. And at the same time, lift cruel and unnecessary government sanctions on vital research into marijuana's very positive medical benefits. If you can't handle all that, then either grow up or move to a country willing to coddle your ignorance, because I'm going to do my best to see that this one no longer does. Next question."

But I don't believe any politician (other than Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, maybe) will do anything like that until a large number of Americans openly, forcefully, and very vocally voice their own disapproval of current policy. To that end, I encourage people to openly flaut the law, even at the risk of prosecution, if you can afford the consequences. (In many jurisdictions these days, not much, if your infraction is minimal. In some, possibly none at all.) Massive, visible, widespread, and sustained civil disobedience is likely the shortest road to decriminalisation, in my view. That, and what I hope will be a growing trend in law enforcement and justice to just not take these laws seriously anymore, the same way we ignore countless other outdated laws still on the books.
 
2012-09-21 02:04:38 PM

Lligeret: No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.
Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.


Except that's a BS argument. If someone with cancer is having issues they need to talk with their oncologist about adjusting the dose or type of anti-emetics and steroids. Pot doesn't do a very good job of anything except messing up your head.
 
2012-09-21 02:08:52 PM

willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too


This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.
 
2012-09-21 02:10:53 PM

Vitamin Pb: I love how the stoners can't read TFA and think that their addiction helps stop cancer.

Wait, you say marijuana isn't addictive? Well it certain leads to cognitive breakdown. Just look at the level of derp from the users in here.


The best example of I've seen of derp so far is just above this sentence. I'm sorry, kid, but this is major fail on your part. You can't even write English clearly.
 
2012-09-21 02:12:39 PM

missiv: FlashHarry: still no cure for *cough* what was that again?

Has it been that long for you? The cough was dispensed with ages ago, with the advent of vaporizers. Eating always gave a better high, but one would have to have some amount of patience for it to "kick" in. Active beers, active sodas, active foods or just raw, there is an application to fit your likes and something to provide your needs.


I'm going to hire you when I open my online store.
 
2012-09-21 02:12:51 PM

MrHelpful: Lligeret: MrHelpful: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.


No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.
Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.


As a non-user, I don't give a shiat wtf stoners do. I have never been negatively impacted by a stoner. Legalizing it would simply get them all out of everyone faces. It does not actually impact me in any way shape or form whether they smoke or not, and our country could stop spending a stupid amount of money on enforcing policies that do not actually provide any benefit to society, outside of a topic that everyone can get their panties in a bunch over because everyone likes complaining about things, and a bunch of money to a defective prison industry.



Point is if you oppose medicinal marijuana I hope you get cancer (no I really do, if you feel like pointlessly increasing the suffering of others and there are no negative impacts on you then just fark off and die (of cancer)), and find yourself unable to eat, we will see how quick you change your tune about legali ...


Actually what you did was say he ignored the article. When you actually ignored what was in his post

He simply stated that once again the science shows that the plant has medicinal properties and has been shown to have medical benefits. That by definition means that the plant referred to as marijuana should not be listed as schedule 1 in the US. By the very definition of schedule 1 provided above, anything with medical benefits should not be listed there.

It is pretty simple. If the plant was not listed as schedule 1 it would not have all the restrictions on it for research purposes. I'm all for legalization but the real issue is that scientific research is being stymied by arguments the government knows are BS and have been proven FALSE.

Even if one is against legalization for personal use, having the government restrict legitimate research on marijuana because of political reasons not helth and safety is bogus
 
2012-09-21 02:27:02 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too

This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.


More continued fall-out from the failed Bush Administration? Say it ain't so, and the TEA party wants to up the levels of DERP and control over women and what people do in the bedroom and yet rail on and on about the Federal Government, our Obama Birther Socialist Keynan POTUS and our historically low tax rates!
 
2012-09-21 02:30:01 PM

viscountalpha: I don't condone or endorse recreational use of MJ, but if you actually have cancer and it helps you gain back cravings for food and has positive side effects? I would call that a win/win.

It doesn't belong in the schedule 1 class. I am against us oregonians having a POUND of it before its illegal though.


/ffs what a dumb measure


Do you have any argument for these feelings you have? Or are you just going with your gut on it?
 
2012-09-21 02:32:09 PM

blockhouse: Awful lot of zealots around here. Wake me when cannabis has been shown to prevent metastasis in actual people, not just lab rats or cells in a Petri dish.

/cancer pharmacist
//despite the hype, many of my patients don't like Marinol and prefer Remeron or Megace to boost their appetite


That's all well and good, but a valid question remains: Given the findings in this and other studies, should cannabis remain a Schedule I substance?

Perhaps, given your position, you can offer the rest of us some insight into how that scheduling may affect research. We'd be very interested to know.
 
2012-09-21 02:42:03 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.


Canada does the same stuff. Try getting in with a DUI. I think its a 10 year ban, which I guess is better than life-long, but still. Then of course at the end of the 10 they may hold that against you in the issuing of new crossing documents.

Canada also now wants me to call in and report an entry if I go onto their half of lake eerie to fish (no dropping anchor, no boat to boat contact, no land contact). That's actually more strict than our customs, who consider the three items in parentheses to be requirements for reporting your entry. Not to be confused the border patrol side of things, who can and will, without need for any level of suspicion, perform border searches on boats of both nations that cross the halfway point of the great lakes and the Detroit River - canadian authorities do the exact same thing as well.

Penalty for not calling in, on both sides, can be large fines and boat seizures. To my knowledge neither one is particular aggressive about major fines or seizures, despite reading you a riot act if you don't. They are now issuing written documented warnings though. I've always called in just because it's no real trouble, but calling in every time I go up the river through a shipping channel is kind of tedious.
 
2012-09-21 03:24:12 PM
Oh, full agreement with subby! I knew a once motivated college student who smoked the demon weed and realized his photojournalism degree was as useless as "a degree in VCR repair".
 
Me
2012-09-21 03:42:13 PM
One of the best ways to use Cannabis is to juice the raw plant. See:

LEAF [The Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Cannabis]
 
2012-09-21 04:25:23 PM

willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too


Well she was a New Yorker in Texas. Had that been Willie farking Nelson, it'd been all gravy.
 
2012-09-21 04:32:27 PM

funk_soul_bubby: willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too

Well she was a New Yorker in Texas. Had that been Willie farking Nelson, it'd been all gravy.


They busted Willie at the same checkpoint last year or the year before. They did call his elbow personal use though so I guess theres that.
 
2012-09-21 05:14:59 PM

RobSeace: WeenerGord: cwick: "A lid of prevention..."

How many joints are in a lid?

Two! ... I roll big joints.


Now requisite-te-te-te.
 
2012-09-21 05:20:03 PM

stonicus: If you grow it, the Pfizer can't patent it and charge you out the ass for it. Why do you hate capitalism?


I don't think it's that simple. A guy once said to me that the hope of taxing pot is fallacious, because if it was made legal then everyone would just grow their own. Yet Dunkin Donuts seems to be doing okay even though it's legal to make coffee at home. People will pay for convenience and at least the illusion of quality control. And from Starbucks' example, we also know that they'll pay extra for prestige. I bet there are rich sick people who pay extra for patent drugs because they feel that generics are pedestrian.
 
2012-09-21 05:24:17 PM

CheekyMonkey: missiv: Fun fact:You could put ditch weed in a cooler with dry ice, and the dry ice/CO2 would increase the level of THC as it dissipates. I guess you could call that processing.

How?


Beats me, but you can do the same a lot faster, cheaper, and easier by sauteing it in butter. Heat converts CDB to THC acid, the psychoactive ingredient in pot. Heat also destroys THC acid, but not as quickly or efficiently, so sauteing it in butter delivers a net increase in THC acid. This is also how you bond it to the fatty acids that activate the bile that you need for uptake if you eat it; otherwise, your body mostly just flushes it through without touching it.
 
2012-09-21 05:28:23 PM

CeroX: Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...


No, but it can be logically derived from the well-documented fact that pot makes everyone sleep with everyone. From that, you can derive any sample subsets you want and connect them to any others you want. Republicans sleeping with liberals, even. (At least, she claimed she was a Republican. She was high at the time, so who knows.)
 
2012-09-21 05:44:59 PM

MrHelpful: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.


So, I guess we can just extract it from magical invisible non-illegal plants, right?

/You are dumb.
 
2012-09-21 05:45:49 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: CeroX: Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...

No, but it can be logically derived from the well-documented fact that pot makes everyone sleep with everyone. From that, you can derive any sample subsets you want and connect them to any others you want. Republicans sleeping with liberals, even. (At least, she claimed she was a Republican. She was high at the time, so who knows.)


Dude, when am I having all this sex? I mean, I must be having lots of sex with different partners, I smoke cannabis.
 
2012-09-21 05:49:20 PM

Rogue Surf: I am hoping that (if) Obama wins and becomes a "Lame Duck President" he can finally change Cannabis from Schedule 1. If not, 3 states have legalization on the ballot so we may finally reach the turning point on this utter farce that is Federal Prohibition - Of a Plant!!. Until then, jury nullification, and making sure we get rid of the politicians who are for this "War on Plants" and also pushing to get even more states to enact medical cannabis laws will remain the only recourse of the will of the people! It is the only way for Americans to overcome the powerful lobbying interests trying to keep the "$tatus Quo" of Private Pri$ion$, Big Pharma, DEA A$$et siezures and the liquor and tobacco and timber industries. "HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!"


First of all, chill. This kind of hysteria won't get us anywhere.

Second, the President does not control drug scheduling. It might surprise you to learn this, but the president is chief executive, not a dictator, and does not have free rein to do whatever he pleases or thinks right. Under the law, Congress controls most things, including most of what the Executive Branch can do. This is why most of the things that presidential candidates say are worthless, since the Office of the President does not have unilateral power to do most of those things. Obama can not and will not reschedule cannabis or any other drug, because he can't.

What he CAN do, however, is try to get the legally required machinery for it in motion, so you're definitely right about that much. The system is at least as much political as it is legal, so it does probably need at least the president's blessing before we'll likely see any change. Here's how it really works, though, and this might help people to understand why this change is so hard to make in reality:

As outlined in the Controlled Substances Act, as amended, "any interested party" (anyone, really), may petition for rescheduling of any drug. This petition must be made to the Drug Enforcement Agency. The DEA then investigates the petition, and if they feel it has merit they then pass it on to Health and Human Services for scientific evaluation. If HHS agrees with DEA's findings, they then jointly pass the recommendation to the FDA for evaluation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse for recommendation. What's supposed to happen then is that if all these parties agree, HHS may in effect direct (order) the DEA to reschedule or deschedule the drug in question.

All that fun aside, there's a bigger issue that kind of pisses on the campfire of grassroots hopes and dreams, and that's that the U.S. is party to a number of international drug control agreements that are effectively binding on us, even if we disagree. These agreements and their attendant provisions within our own laws make it easy to reschedule drugs to more restrictive categories, but difficult or all but impossible to move them to less strict categories or deschedule them entirely; the only remedy would be to pull out of those agreements or renegotiate their binding effect on us. (To clarify, other nations can't tell us what to do; but they can decide on their own if they want to cooperate with us, and to what extent.)

So it's not that pot *can't* be rescheduled, only that it's much more difficult than the president waving his magnifient bejeweled hand and making it so.
 
2012-09-21 05:52:51 PM

Rogue Surf: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too

This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.

More continued fall-out from the failed Bush Administration? Say it ain't so, and the TEA party wants to up the levels of DERP and control over women and what people do in the bedroom and yet rail on and on about the Federal Government, our Obama Birther Socialist Keynan POTUS and our historically low tax rates!


That was good for a laugh, thanks. Yes, they are a nutty bunch.

I still think it's funnier as 'gubmint,' though.
 
2012-09-21 05:58:12 PM

LavenderWolf: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: CeroX: Does anyone have a link to good information about the idea that pot leads to black men sleeping with white women as the source of the prohibition? I'm not doubting it's validity, i'm just really curious about this fact and want to know more...

No, but it can be logically derived from the well-documented fact that pot makes everyone sleep with everyone. From that, you can derive any sample subsets you want and connect them to any others you want. Republicans sleeping with liberals, even. (At least, she claimed she was a Republican. She was high at the time, so who knows.)

Dude, when am I having all this sex? I mean, I must be having lots of sex with different partners, I smoke cannabis.


I forgot to mention, it helps a lot to be young, passably good-looking and hygeinic, reasonably likeable, and at least vaguely interesting. It was a long time ago, and I barely remember it now. Come to think of it, I barely remembered it then.
 
2012-09-21 06:20:00 PM

Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.


They haven't found me.

/harvesting the plants tonight. Hang to dry for 6-8 days then cure the buds in glass jars for about 30 days. Then it's Xmas for all my friends.
 
2012-09-21 06:29:43 PM

GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.


Well there are components of red wine that are helpful. But if we can extract it, we have no reason to allow alcoholic beverages to be legal any longer.

GAT_00: King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.


I would like to point out that everything is by default - legal. Its not for us to show why pot should be legalized(even if it was on us, this is just another example). Its on other people to show why it should continue to be illegal - let along why it ever should have been in the first place. You could make a stronger case for making caffeine illegal than marijuana - if you are sticking to scientific facts.
 
2012-09-21 06:43:41 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Except that's a BS argument. If someone with cancer is having issues they need to talk with their oncologist about adjusting the dose or type of anti-emetics and steroids. Pot doesn't do a very good job of anything except messing up your head.


How is it a BS argument? If there are patients who respond to cannabis as an anti-emetic or as appetite enhancer better than placebo, it seems to me that meets the definition of having medical use. Merely saying "yeah, but some other drugs can also do that" doesn't invalidate that use. Consider that we have multiple drugs that can all be used to relieve headaches or joint pain. Should anything after the first be banned because hey, you should just talk to your doctor about getting medicine x? No, of course not.
 
2012-09-21 07:12:22 PM

Tawnos: Mr. Eugenides: Except that's a BS argument. If someone with cancer is having issues they need to talk with their oncologist about adjusting the dose or type of anti-emetics and steroids. Pot doesn't do a very good job of anything except messing up your head.

How is it a BS argument? If there are patients who respond to cannabis as an anti-emetic or as appetite enhancer better than placebo, it seems to me that meets the definition of having medical use. Merely saying "yeah, but some other drugs can also do that" doesn't invalidate that use. Consider that we have multiple drugs that can all be used to relieve headaches or joint pain. Should anything after the first be banned because hey, you should just talk to your doctor about getting medicine x? No, of course not.


Except that in this case you're comparing a drug that farks you up mentally with one that keeps you clear headed. So if you have a drug that doesn't work as well and has side effects I'd say use the good stuff. The good stuff isn't pot.

I'm speaking as someone who has had to deal with chemotherapy more times in the past 30 years than I hope you ever have to. I've seen the side therapys change and while pot may have had a place 20 years ago, it has been far surpassed.
 
2012-09-21 07:39:58 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Except that in this case you're comparing a drug that farks you up mentally with one that keeps you clear headed. So if you have a drug that doesn't work as well and has side effects I'd say use the good stuff. The good stuff isn't pot.

Are you suggesting that the various drugs given for cancer are without side effects? Or that it's somehow unacceptable to have a drug that alters your baseline state?


I'm speaking as someone who has had to deal with chemotherapy more times in the past 30 years than I hope you ever have to. I've seen the side therapys change and while pot may have had a place 20 years ago, it has been far surpassed.

Appeal to authority much?
 
2012-09-21 08:31:27 PM
Julie Keaton: Plomox is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug on the market right now, and it has minimal side effects - only nausea, impotence, and anal leakage.
Dr. Cox: [smiling] I'm gettin' two out of three just from the conversation!
 
2012-09-21 08:40:18 PM

Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.


I just have to thank Obama for sending in his goons to shut down these devil pot shops in California. What a true hero.

I'm going to cringe when I vote for him, but godamnit I still have to.
 
2012-09-22 12:07:48 AM

Novart: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I just have to thank Obama for sending in his goons to shut down these devil pot shops in California. What a true hero.

I'm going to cringe when I vote for him, but godamnit I still have to.


If he were for legalization I don't think he could win.

It's sad to say that. Does our government lay antidrug propaganda? Sure.
Is it easy for any american to learn better? Absolutely.

It is our fault. :(
 
2012-09-22 09:07:39 PM

Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.


hey have you seen the trailer for "The House I Live In"? I hope that documentary gets a wide release. People need to see it.
 
2012-09-22 09:10:53 PM

Novart: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I just have to thank Obama for sending in his goons to shut down these devil pot shops in California. What a true hero.

I'm going to cringe when I vote for him, but godamnit I still have to.


I'm not so sure he can do anything about it really. I was under the understanding that as long as its the law that his hands are tied. What you have out there is a DEA chief,federal marshalls and others intent on shutting those places down and until you remove a lot of them or change the law it will remain that way.
 
Displayed 49 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report