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.

(Think Progress)   Caltech physicist: "If all science were run like marijuana research, creationists would control paleontology." Subby: Wait, what?   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 76
    More: Obvious, Caltech, marijuana, creation sciences, dangerous goods, creationists, physicists, National Institute, NIDA  
•       •       •

3782 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Feb 2013 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-26 10:00:10 AM
So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?
 
2013-02-26 10:08:28 AM

mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?



Like...it will make them disrespect authority, man.
 
2013-02-26 10:12:44 AM

mysticcat: They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?


Well, you know, it could lead them to ruin their lives. Can't be too careful.
 
2013-02-26 10:29:03 AM

mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?


Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients.  You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork.  Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.
 
2013-02-26 10:29:07 AM
kfpcpa.files.wordpress.com

Agrees.
 
2013-02-26 10:30:28 AM

Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.


Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.
 
2013-02-26 10:32:29 AM

Mr. Eugenides: Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.


He said he "could," not that he did.

/Lighten up, Francis.
 
2013-02-26 10:33:48 AM
Missed it by that much.
 
2013-02-26 10:37:38 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.


He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.
 
2013-02-26 10:38:27 AM

Mr. Eugenides: mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?

Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients.  You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork.  Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.


Since I'm an allergist, I never write for narcotics.  But I do have a DEA number and a license to prescribe them to whomever I see fit.  The hypocrisy lies in my ability to  write for drugs with very high addictive potential that are commonly abused and are a common cause for lethal overdose while marijuana, which has no known LD50, is schedule 1.
 
2013-02-26 10:39:18 AM
A classic example of circular logic.  The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Another fun fact: Back during the 80's, the U.S. Government actually established a medical marijuana program to see if it did indeed have any benefits.  They picked a group of people with various conditions and started providing with marijuana.  Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down.  Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month.  According to the ones that haven't remained anonymous, the government has absolutely no interesting in learning how well it has worked out for them.  I guess once they realized the results of the study weren't going to turn out the way they wanted to they decided to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "La la la I can't hear you!"
 
2013-02-26 10:43:27 AM
...but only if the world were ruled by giant beavers
 
2013-02-26 10:46:34 AM

mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?


Go$h, I wonder why pain pill$ are ea$ily pre$scribed, and pot which i$ ea$ily grown at home i$n't?
 
2013-02-26 10:48:07 AM

Neondistraction: Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down. Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month.


Still receiving, thanks to a SHUT DOWN program?  No wonder we're going broke.
 
2013-02-26 10:54:50 AM

MacWizard: Mr. Eugenides: Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

He said he "could," not that he did.

/Lighten up, Francis.


QFT
 
2013-02-26 10:56:22 AM
At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

/legalize it
 
2013-02-26 10:58:26 AM

DECMATH: Neondistraction: Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down. Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month.

Still receiving, thanks to a SHUT DOWN program?  No wonder we're going broke.


Shut it down as in no longer accepting new patients for study.  Officially the program no longer exists but the remaining patients are grandfathered in until they die.  Presumably to keep any of the patients from filing a lawsuit or otherwise making noise and bringing the program to the attention of the general population while a president who campaigned on strongly anti-drug platform was running for re-election.

Also, I can't imagine the costs to supply 5 people with a supply of medical grade marijuana is really making a dent in the annual budget.  Like a glass of water being dumped in a swimming pool.
 
2013-02-26 11:16:45 AM

stuhayes2010: mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?

Go$h, I wonder why pain pill$ are ea$ily pre$scribed, and pot which i$ ea$ily grown at home i$n't?


Yes, you can easily grow marijuana plants at home. You cannot easily grow anything that would be worth consuming.

You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.

/probably all three really
//bugs me when people talk about how easy it is to grow marijuana...yeah it is easy to grow a marijuana plant, but it is anything but easy to grow smokable marijuana.
 
2013-02-26 11:37:27 AM

Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic.  The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.


Well, except for the fact that the federal government has contracted with foreign entities to do studies for them.
 
2013-02-26 11:38:51 AM

js34603: Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.


The reason pharmaceuticals don't like it is because they really couldn't have any control over it. Yes it's a biatch to grow, but you can still do it. It's the reason why they're pushing Marinol as the replacement for marijuana. Synthetic THC in pill form that they can personally regulate. Never mind that it's unbelieveably expensive and extremely hard to get the correct dose down. A person who smokes can smoke one and quit, or take another hit if need be. A person on Marinol can't control the dosage, which can actually lead to nausea and sickness the drug was originally trying to counteract.
 
2013-02-26 12:04:53 PM
Have you ever tried to further evolution - ON WEED?
 
2013-02-26 12:05:56 PM

scottydoesntknow: js34603: Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.

The reason pharmaceuticals don't like it is because they really couldn't have any control over it. Yes it's a biatch to grow, but you can still do it. It's the reason why they're pushing Marinol as the replacement for marijuana. Synthetic THC in pill form that they can personally regulate. Never mind that it's unbelieveably expensive and extremely hard to get the correct dose down. A person who smokes can smoke one and quit, or take another hit if need be. A person on Marinol can't control the dosage, which can actually lead to nausea and sickness the drug was originally trying to counteract.


Additionally, Marinol doesn't (or at least didn't, haven't checked in a while) contain any CBDs, which are the parts which help people with some illnesses.
 
2013-02-26 12:06:13 PM
sheldonbigbangtheory.com
 
2013-02-26 12:47:26 PM

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.


Wow...kind'a early in the day to see someone double down on the stupid like that. Well played, sir!
 
2013-02-26 12:50:14 PM

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.


Who shiat in your cheerios this morning?
 
2013-02-26 12:53:35 PM

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.


Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.
 
2013-02-26 12:56:01 PM

machodonkeywrestler: Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.


Shut up about shiat you don't know? What are you, Canadian?
 
2013-02-26 01:05:20 PM

Tremolo: machodonkeywrestler: Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.

Shut up about shiat you don't know? What are you, Canadian?


Worse, a scientist.
 
2013-02-26 01:08:04 PM

mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?


Hey they could get cancer!
 
2013-02-26 01:16:59 PM

Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic.  The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Another fun fact: Back during the 80's, the U.S. Government actually established a medical marijuana program to see if it did indeed have any benefits.  They picked a group of people with various conditions and started providing with marijuana.  Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down.  Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month.  According to the ones that haven't remained anonymous, the government has absolutely no interesting in learning how well it has worked out for them.  I guess once they realized the results of the study weren't going to turn out the way they wanted to they decided to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "La la la I can't hear you!"


Actually it's worse than that.  Nixon created a commission, and hand picked the participants in the 1970's to study Marijuana, which came to the conclusion that it should be decriminalized.  Of course the results were predictable:


"...The so-called "Shafer Commission" -- the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- whose members were appointed by then-President Richard Nixon. The Shafer Commission's (named after commission Chair, Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania) 1972 report, entitled "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," boldly proclaimed that "neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety" and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.

...rejected by Nixon -- who refused to even read the report -- and largely ignored by Congress..."



Our marijuana laws are a result of a series of illogical, corrupt and idiotic moves by politicians stretching back for 80 years, resulting in a status quo that receives far too much ignorant protection from modern politicians and media.
 
2013-02-26 01:35:29 PM

untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

/legalize it


Haha, using logic in a creationist context. Nah, they'd just say that marijuana wasn't there at that time and was added later by the devil to tempt man and corrupt the soul. Or you know, make up whatever rationale they feel like for holding otherwise mutually exclusive stances.
 
2013-02-26 01:39:21 PM

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.


Dude needs to smoke a bowl and chill
 
2013-02-26 01:39:25 PM
Legalizing marijuana and other drugs would cause unemployment.  We'd have to fire a lot of cops, judges, prison guards, lawyers and law clerks because we wouldn't need as many.

This is why cops and such are almost always against legalization - it would be biting the hand that feeds them.

/drug laws are a cure that's worse than the disease.
 
2013-02-26 01:44:09 PM

Myria: Legalizing marijuana and other drugs would cause unemployment.  We'd have to fire a lot of cops, judges, prison guards, lawyers and law clerks because we wouldn't need as many.

This is why cops and such are almost always against legalization - it would be biting the hand that feeds them.

/drug laws are a cure that's worse than the disease.


Weed is a job killer.  Meth is a job creator.
 
2013-02-26 01:45:33 PM

js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.


Really??

I'll bet you have never really tried, and don't know anyone else who has...  It's just a plant.

CSB: Back in college my friends and I had a spare closet that we outfitted with some ventilation and lights, a little water pump and... viola, we had some decent shiat!  It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry.  Nowadays, I'm actually developing a bit of a green thumb with my backyard garden, and I'd be willing to say I could do a much better job that I did back in school.
 
2013-02-26 01:45:33 PM

untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.


But I think that literalist interpretation would tend to die with its adherents as they throw handfuls of nightshade berries down their throats.
 
2013-02-26 01:47:29 PM
Huh... am I the only one seeing a PuffIt Vaporizer ad in this thread?  Contextual ads FTW.
 
2013-02-26 01:58:17 PM

js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.


Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."
 
2013-02-26 02:04:34 PM

SmellsLikePoo: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Really??

I'll bet you have never really tried, and don't know anyone else who has...  It's just a plant.

CSB: Back in college my friends and I had a spare closet that we outfitted with some ventilation and lights, a little water pump and... viola, we had some decent shiat!  It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry.  Nowadays, I'm actually developing a bit of a green thumb with my backyard garden, and I'd be willing to say I could do a much better job that I did back in school.


You didn't have decent shiat. You don't know what decent shiat is if you think you grew it in your closet at college.

Again, any idiot can grow a marijuana plant. No disputing that, you could toss some of the seeds from your "decent shiat" out into the yard and it will grow.

But, while it might not take a PhD to grow high quality marijuana, it does take far more knowledge and experience than people like you seem to think. Just because you can grow a marijuana plant doesn't mean you'd want to smoke it.

/also not to harsh your CSB, but I doubt that happened. Sorry, tossing "some lights" and a water pump in a closet ain't resulting in any worthwhile marijuana.
//I know quite a bit about growing incidentally (from my friend...), and you clearly do not.
 
2013-02-26 02:07:56 PM

ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."


Whatever, I do not know much about pharmaceuticals, I readily admit it. It was just an analogy to illustrate the point.

How bout this "you're just as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience as you are to use a chemistry set to make MDMA." Is that better? MDMA is a chemistry thing right?
 
2013-02-26 02:15:15 PM

js34603: ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."

Whatever, I do not know much about pharmaceuticals, I readily admit it. It was just an analogy to illustrate the point.

How bout this "you're just as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience as you are to use a chemistry set to make MDMA." Is that better? MDMA is a chemistry thing right?


Hah, funny you should use that example; it triggers Oxytocin secretion.
 
2013-02-26 02:22:58 PM
I'm worried about the same thing happening to "Performance Enhancing Drugs".   Sports journalists are generally borderline retarded and scientifically illiterate, and are going to keep stigmatizing  PEDs and demonizing high paid athletes that use them is an easy story that fill column space.    I wonder at what point critical mass is going to be reached where they become so negatively stigmatized that you can't even perform real science on the potential positive effects they could have on the general populace because no one will fund/grant you on it.
 
2013-02-26 02:35:09 PM

js34603: You didn't have decent shiat. You don't know what decent shiat is if you think you grew it in your closet at college.

Again, any idiot can grow a marijuana plant. No disputing that, you could toss some of the seeds from your "decent shiat" out into the yard and it will grow.

But, while it might not take a PhD to grow high quality marijuana, it does take far more knowledge and experience than people like you seem to think. Just because you can grow a marijuana plant doesn't mean you'd want to smoke it.

/also not to harsh your CSB, but I doubt that happened. Sorry, tossing "some lights" and a water pump in a closet ain't resulting in any worthwhile marijuana.
//I know quite a bit about growing incidentally (from my friend...), and you clearly do not.


Your ability to grow "high quality" stuff is pretty much relegated to your ability to obtain "high quality" strains.  After that, a trained chimp could grow it and cultivate it.   It's a hell of a lot of easier than brewing your own beer.         Yeah, if you want to get a 28% THC content it might help to have a background in botany, but it's a bit like saying unless you're drinking a 50 year old Macallan in Lalique  you're really don't have high quality whiskey.
 
2013-02-26 03:00:54 PM
There should be protests in Washington; the million man marijuana march where everyone goes to the national mall, lights up, and...Hey you know what I miss? Twinkies. A Twinkie would be farking amazing right now.
 
2013-02-26 03:27:29 PM

Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.


Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"
 
2013-02-26 03:31:44 PM

MayoSlather: There should be protests in Washington; the million man marijuana march where everyone goes to the national mall, lights up, and...Hey you know what I miss? Twinkies. A Twinkie would be farking amazing right now.


They still make twinkies....

/phone corrects twinkies to 'two kids' which is weird in this context
 
2013-02-26 03:37:11 PM

MrEricSir: Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"


It's a bad reason, but it's not circular unless, "why are they illegal?-- because no one uses them!" was a rationale.

no studies > no legalization > no studies > no legalization > ...
they're illegal > > don't use them > ???
 
2013-02-26 03:41:06 PM

ndeans: [kfpcpa.files.wordpress.com image 385x288]

Agrees.


Seems more like an opinion his best lady friend would have. That said Sheldon Cooper, were he an actual person and not just a tv character, would benefit greatly from getting a little Walter Bishoppy with drugs.
 
2013-02-26 03:44:34 PM

ProfessorOhki: MrEricSir: Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"

It's a bad reason, but it's not circular unless, "why are they illegal?-- because no one uses them!" was a rationale.

no studies > no legalization > no studies > no legalization > ...
they're illegal > > don't use them > ???


It's circular because the reason they're bad is because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they're bad. A very tight cycle of non-reasoning!
 
2013-02-26 03:45:55 PM

MrEricSir: ProfessorOhki: MrEricSir: Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"

It's a bad reason, but it's not circular unless, "why are they illegal?-- because no one uses them!" was a rationale.

no studies > no legalization > no studies > no legalization > ...
they're illegal > > don't use them > ???

It's circular because the reason they're bad is because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they're bad. A very tight cycle of non-reasoning!


Well, sure, if you put it that way.
 
2013-02-26 04:36:00 PM

InmanRoshi: Your ability to grow "high quality" stuff is pretty much relegated to your ability to obtain "high quality" strains.


js34603: and you clearly do not


Are you trying to out-pothead-me?  Dude... first off, go smoke a bowl and calm yourself a bit.  No need to be this agitated talking about ganja.

InmanRoshi really hit the nail on the head.  No matter who you are, if you don't start with a good strain you've got nothing.  Sure you can cross-breed, clone, etc... but if you start out with some mexican ditch weed...

Good weed can be grown just about anywhere if you have the initiative.  My school was in Manhattan where a open space to grow was in short supply. I'll tell you however, there was no shortage of people who knew their way around the dankest of the dank.  I simplified the process and my setup for the sake of brevity, but to try and cast doubt... you're reaching man.  I never have claimed to be an expert, but I did end up with some very tasty and effective cannabis (my yeild is really where the plants suffered).

/My experience with any pot coming from south of the mason dixie line (you are from NC?) has been basically shiat, shiat, and more shiat.  I'm really glad you found a friend who is into botany and is learning how to improve on your hillbilly weed experience, but that doesn't make you an expert.
//But you do sound like a dick.
 
2013-02-26 04:36:42 PM

ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."


While you make a good point, Professor, I have never seen a chemistry set that included nipples. At least not the kind you could stimulate.
 
2013-02-26 04:40:48 PM

MacWizard: ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."

While you make a good point, Professor, I have never seen a chemistry set that included nipples. At least not the kind you could stimulate.


I find that most chemists have a set though. Well, at least those who haven't been careless with corrosives.
 
2013-02-26 04:56:04 PM

mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?


To the article, duh.

To you, can patients, or really anyone with access to water, dirt, and sunlight, grow Oxycotin?  No, then why are people still shocked about the motivations for suppressing research and legalization?
 
2013-02-26 05:11:15 PM

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.


Considering that you just got caught out in a misrepresentation of what he was saying, maybe you should be a bit more cautious about claiming that someone "straight up lied" about something else.

Just sayin'.
 
2013-02-26 05:13:55 PM

roc6783: mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?

To the article, duh.

To you, can patients, or really anyone with access to water, dirt, and sunlight, grow Oxycotin?  No, then why are people still shocked about the motivations for suppressing research and legalization?




I know, right.

Oh wait...
www.eatraw.com
 
2013-02-26 05:20:54 PM

js34603: Yes, you can easily grow marijuana plants at home. You cannot easily grow anything that would be worth consuming.

You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.


bullshiat. this is untrue.
 
2013-02-26 05:27:49 PM

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.


You are trying way too hard to be an ass. You need to be more subtle in the future.

4/10
 
2013-02-26 05:34:57 PM

StoPPeRmobile: roc6783: mysticcat: ***snip***
I know, right.

Oh wait...
[www.eatraw.com image 194x250]


Are you implying that any able-bodied adult can grow poppies and manufacture Oxycotin?

Because if you actually think that, I would wonder what you are doing with your spare time.

Hobodeluxe: js34603: Yes, you can easily grow marijuana plants at home. You cannot easily grow anything that would be worth consuming.

You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

bullshiat. this is untrue.


Are you going to grow the best of the best by throwing some seeds in dirt and waiting till it is ready to harvest?  No.  Do you need top quality stuff to bake into cookies or brownies that will have the desired effect?  I wouldn't know, but my friend who lives in a country where the consumption of such products is legal assures me that you do not.
 
2013-02-26 06:54:10 PM

MrEricSir: Remember DARE?


Drugs Are Really Expensive
 
2013-02-26 07:37:45 PM
I just want to see that proposal because I'm interested to know the theoretical mechanism by which a paranoia-inducing agent could reduce the effects of a psychiatric disorder that includes extreme anxiety, and paranoia.  Seems like it would be more likely to aggravate the chances of a psychotic break.

Not saying it can't help, weird stuff happens in science.  Just sounds a bit homoeopathic and I'd like to see the science.

The trials using ecstasy to treat PTSD sound more promising because they actually appear to treat the problem (as in make it go away), not support an ongoing chronic drug habit that mitigates some symptoms but will cause you a bunch of others.
 
2013-02-26 07:37:51 PM

MacWizard: MrEricSir: Remember DARE?

Drugs Are Really Expensive




Don't Arrest Retarded Elephants?
 
2013-02-26 07:38:12 PM

js34603: stuhayes2010: mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?

Go$h, I wonder why pain pill$ are ea$ily pre$scribed, and pot which i$ ea$ily grown at home i$n't?

Yes, you can easily grow marijuana plants at home. You cannot easily grow anything that would be worth consuming.

You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.

/probably all three really
//bugs me when people talk about how easy it is to grow marijuana...yeah it is easy to grow a marijuana plant, but it is anything but easy to grow smokable marijuana.


You are crazy. Growing weed, yes, decent smoking weed, is easy. The trick is not being an idiot.
 
2013-02-26 07:38:47 PM

if_i_really_have_to: I just want to see that proposal because I'm interested to know the theoretical mechanism by which a paranoia-inducing agent could reduce the effects of a psychiatric disorder that includes extreme anxiety, and paranoia.  Seems like it would be more likely to aggravate the chances of a psychotic break.

Not saying it can't help, weird stuff happens in science.  Just sounds a bit homoeopathic and I'd like to see the science.

The trials using ecstasy to treat PTSD sound more promising because they actually appear to treat the problem (as in make it go away), not support an ongoing chronic drug habit that mitigates some symptoms but will cause you a bunch of others.


Do you mean like using speed on kids that are hyperactive?
 
2013-02-26 07:52:37 PM

js34603: ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."

Whatever, I do not know much about pharmaceuticals, I readily admit it. It was just an analogy to illustrate the point.

How bout this "you're just as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience as you are to use a chemistry set to make MDMA." Is that better? MDMA is a chemistry thing right?


If you think the difficulty levels of those two things are equal, there is something wrong with you.
 
2013-02-27 02:51:22 AM

mysticcat: there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.


Look, smartass, 10 out of 10 terminally ill patients who smoke marijuana die. Coincidence? I think not.
 
2013-02-27 05:24:22 AM

untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

/legalize it


According to that all christians should be vegetarian as well "to you it shall be for meat"
 
2013-02-27 05:35:24 AM

js34603: SmellsLikePoo: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Really??

I'll bet you have never really tried, and don't know anyone else who has...  It's just a plant.

CSB: Back in college my friends and I had a spare closet that we outfitted with some ventilation and lights, a little water pump and... viola, we had some decent shiat!  It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry.  Nowadays, I'm actually developing a bit of a green thumb with my backyard garden, and I'd be willing to say I could do a much better job that I did back in school.

You didn't have decent shiat. You don't know what decent shiat is if you think you grew it in your closet at college.

Again, any idiot can grow a marijuana plant. No disputing that, you could toss some of the seeds from your "decent shiat" out into the yard and it will grow.

But, while it might not take a PhD to grow high quality marijuana, it does take far more knowledge and experience than people like you seem to think. Just because you can grow a marijuana plant doesn't mean you'd want to smoke it.

/also not to harsh your CSB, but I doubt that happened. Sorry, tossing "some lights" and a water pump in a closet ain't resulting in any worthwhile marijuana.
//I know quite a bit about growing incidentally (from my friend...), and you clearly do not.


You don`t know jack. I bet you are the sort who say "Unless I use this bloom booster, this root stimulator and this extra additive and extra P and K at week 4-5 then I don`t get weed half as good" without actually testing just how little you need to make really good weed. Carry on spending large amounts of money on additives that do nothing, I`m sure your local grow shop guy loves you and is your best friend. He gets to go on an extra holiday because of you guys.

I`ve seen good weed grown by throwing some seeds on the ground in may and cutting them down at the end of september. Thats it, no other work. I`ve seen better weed grown by people using nutrient doser/monitors expensive chemicals and additives and going the full nine yards but the difference wasn`t as great as you make out. You can get stuff good enough for yourself from either method. If you start with a good plant then it`s mostly done for you, if you start with a bad plant then it`s all work and no result.
 
2013-02-27 06:58:26 AM

if_i_really_have_to: I just want to see that proposal because I'm interested to know the theoretical mechanism by which a paranoia-inducing agent could reduce the effects of a psychiatric disorder that includes extreme anxiety, and paranoia.  Seems like it would be more likely to aggravate the chances of a psychotic break.

Not saying it can't help, weird stuff happens in science.  Just sounds a bit homoeopathic and I'd like to see the science.

The trials using ecstasy to treat PTSD sound more promising because they actually appear to treat the problem (as in make it go away), not support an ongoing chronic drug habit that mitigates some symptoms but will cause you a bunch of others.


There are two main active ingredients, THC and CBD. THC is the psychoactive portion and can cause anxiety etc (high) and CBD is an antipsychotic which reduces anxiety etc (sleepy). The ratio of THC and CBD determine what effect cannabis has on anxiety etc.
 
2013-02-27 07:00:40 AM

LavenderWolf: js34603: ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."

Whatever, I do not know much about pharmaceuticals, I readily admit it. It was just an analogy to illustrate the point.

How bout this "you're just as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience as you are to use a chemistry set to make MDMA." Is that better? MDMA is a chemistry thing right?

If you think the difficulty levels of those two things are equal, there is something wrong with you.


FTFY
 
2013-02-27 07:38:59 AM
Boy, do I have to laugh when people on the eastern seaboard get in a fight over what amounts to good marijuana.

/southern Oregonian
 
2013-02-27 07:52:20 AM

dready zim: You don`t know jack. I bet you are the sort who say "Unless I use this bloom booster, this root stimulator and this extra additive and extra P and K at week 4-5 then I don`t get weed half as good" without actually testing just how little you need to make really good weed. Carry on spending large amounts of money on additives that do nothing, I`m sure your local grow shop guy loves you and is your best friend. He gets to go on an extra holiday because of you guys.


It's not rocket science, but some work does go a long way for a variety of end-results. If done properly, it can still be done affordably and in rather unconventional quarters and without a ton of additives (in some places, one can harvest their own nitrates via bird droppings, for example), but taking a few extra steps does make a difference that is noticeable in yield, content, density, and so forth. It's somewhat like taking care of a fruit-bearing tree - the plant does most of the work, but you need to guide it along the way for best results.

Throwing shiat on the ground and nothing more, and boom there's good marijuana? I imagine that, at the very least, some sort of hands-on work was done, unless a magic environment has been created with perfect light and humidity, as well as no pests or mold or any of that; not to mention, good old luck that you didn't get a seed explosion.
 
2013-02-27 11:08:47 AM

untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

/legalize it


dunno which side that statement gives more ammo to, but I like it anyway. :-)
 
2013-02-28 09:44:47 AM

treesloth: untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

But I think that literalist interpretation would tend to die with its adherents as they throw handfuls of nightshade berries down their throats.


Just because you CAN doesn't mean you MUST. Surely even you can see that. Additionally, belladonna (nightshade) has been ingested by people for thousands of years, in forms such as  Donnagel PG, Scopolamine, Atropine sulphate, and  Donnatal.
 
2013-02-28 09:51:48 AM

dready zim: untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

/legalize it

According to that all christians should be vegetarian as well "to you it shall be for meat"


Actually, no - fish and game was provided a few verses previously. Also, hilariously, the bible dude Paul says that omnivores are smart, and vegetarians are weak, in Romans 14:2, also, one of the signs of the end times is supposedly a rise in vegetarianism. No, seriously. It's called "a doctrine of devils".
 
2013-02-28 02:46:50 PM

untaken_name: Actually, no - fish and game was provided a few verses previously. Also, hilariously, the bible dude Paul says that omnivores are smart, and vegetarians are weak, in Romans 14:2, also, one of the signs of the end times is supposedly a rise in vegetarianism. No, seriously. It's called "a doctrine of devils".


Hey, everyone was fine with the Jooz until they tried to take away our bacon.  Just sayin'...
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report