Marijuana Shown to Relieve HIV Nerve Pain

Voice of America ^ | Feb 16th, 2007 | Rose Hoban

[youngjim]

No mention of smoking there.

I don't suppose you're implying that it would be alright to 'vaporize', eat, or otherwise ingest MJ?

[Mojave]

I don't suppose you're implying that it would be alright to 'vaporize', eat, or otherwise ingest MJ?

I'm not implying, I'm stating directly: Your claim that the medical organizations you cited had endorsed smoking pot was a blatant and deliberate lie.

You're busted.

[cryptical]

I don't suppose you're implying that it would be alright to 'vaporize', eat, or otherwise ingest MJ?

Of course he isn't, he's successfully moved the goalposts. Hate to see what'd happen if someone were to get ahold of the cited report and find out that Mojave is just blowing smoke (as it were).

[youngjim]

Your claim that the medical organizations you cited had endorsed smoking pot was a blatant and deliberate lie.

Nice try. youngjim notes he will be more careful when dealing with deceitful pro-woddies.

While they stop short of an endorsement of "smoked marijuana" they do note the history of the Cannabis sativa has a long history as a medicine [for] pain, asthma,and dysentery," etc. and calls for "further clinical research into the potential therapeutic uses of cannabinoids, and while this is underway, that doctors should be able to prescribe cannabinoids for specific serious disorders"

Your specious distinction between smoking mj and other delivery systems is noted.

Your hostile tone indicates that you know your beaten. Despite your calumny, I'll be here for ya.

[Mojave]

While they stop short of an endorsement of "smoked marijuana"

Translation: They did not endorse moking marijuana.

[robertpaulsen]

"You're repeating yourself, Bob. Long term loss of short term memory?"

I was asking the question of a different poster. Still can't get an answer.

[Mojave]

Of course he isn't, he's successfully moved the goalposts.

Backwards. Here's the original question:

What major medical organization endorses smoking pot for "treating disease or illness"?

BTW, the article is also about smoking dope.

Words apparently mean whatever dopers want them to.

[robertpaulsen]

"Words apparently mean whatever dopers want them to."

robertpaulsen agrees.

[robertpaulsen]

"ironically given to me by RobertPaulsen"

I don't recall doing that, and don't know why I would have.

[youngjim]

I don't recall doing that, and don't know why I would have.

Perhaps you should lay off the sauce before you post, sunshine. See your post #48, first citation.

And not that you asked but this quote "Smoked and inhaled, jagoff. Learn to read and stop misquoting me. That a good way to find yourself on the outside lookin' in." is a despicable toothless threat on your part. I never hit the abuse button (as I prefer to fight my own battles) but this kind of commentary is grossly bad form.

The most offensive part of your and your cronies tactics is your juvenile attempts to bully your opponents into silence. Keep it up--your lack of integrity is an amazing spectacle.

[Just sayin]

Here is some more reasoning for you. If someone does something, for whatever reason, and it only affects them and it doesn't affect you, why are you worried about it?

If someone smokes opium it is one thing, if they rob you to pay for it then it is another. Notice please it is not the opium that is the problem it would be the person's actions that are the problem. When seeking to solve a problem it is best to focus on the problem itself not spin the responsibility and the blame to something inanimate.

One more point, why is it you seek to point out one thing as if that is the only deciding factor?

[Just sayin]

What major medical organization endorses smoking pot for "treating disease or illness"?

Where in that definition does it say that "Major Medical Organization" has to label it a medicine for it to be considered a medicine? Oh wait, it doesn't does it?

You are seeking to apply a standard of definition that fits your position rather than the definition I offered. You could provide a definition that does stipulate that a "Major Medical Organization" must approve but you have to use a dictionary not the FDA handbook or your own ideological thoughts. If you can provide one, then by all means make sure you correct the online dictionary that the definition I offered came from. www.dictionary.com

What miss here is that some people consider this a medicine and some people consider that a medicine. We can't have a varying or diverse view on that subject can we? We all must assimilate under one view, yours, just like Sharia Law huh? This is what you present whether you care to admit it or not.

One more thing, would you consider history itself to be a "major organization'?

[robertpaulsen]

"I never hit the abuse button"

I have and I will on anyone who misquotes me to score some "gotcha" points. You knew full well from my post that I was talking about smoked and inhaled marijuana, yet you chose to twist my words to be funny.

Don't do that. You've been warned.

[Just sayin]

Do they claim to be pure?

I thought that was the whole point of your disagreement. Impure, right? Your circular arguments just encompassed you RP.

Because smoking a homegrown and handmade impure non-filtered plant product down to the last nanometer, drawing it deep into the lungs and holding it, is not a healthy delivery system for a medicine?

I will present that I misunderstood but I made no attempt to misquote you on purpose. Surely you can accept there is a difference between the two. I lost track of the smoking part and focussed on the inhaled part. My mistake. There is no need for threats RP, why do you feel a need to do such things when I am just trying to have a conversation with you?

I don't want my tax dollars wasted on research in this area. Too bad.

That is really what it is all about huh RP....what you want. There is no need for tax dollars to be spent so where exactly does that come from? Government studies? Maybe we could listen to 'personal studies' and omit the tax dollar spending, you would find that agreeable then right?

If folks like you would just get of your holier than thou perch, then people like me could grow our own and use our own and never bother a soul or their tax dollars. Would this not be a positive outcome in your eyes? Oh wait, I have to do what you say, the way you say, right? My bad.

You couldn't care less about the risks

You are wrong when you say I don't care about risks. I do care about them and I want to assess them for myself. I want the freedom to to make my own decisions in that department. Please notice RP, I want you to have that exact same freedom. I do not want to make that decision for you, it isn't mine to make. To call me dishonest because you yourself deny the words I say to you makes you the dishonest one.

If you want to smoke marijuana, fine.

If you truly meant that statement you would not care to see it remain illegal and see people put in jail over it. Jail them for their actions RP, not just for a plant or it's flowers. You don't get a vote on what my medical treatment shall be, why would you think I am asking you for one?

That IS your wet dream, isn't it? Ain't gonna happen, buck-o.

It isn't my wet dream but it sure is your worst nightmare. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't be so opposed to it, especially if it wasn't taxpayer funded. But you are, aren't you. Why is that again? Oh yeah, you oppose it for your own reasons and so should everyone else based on those same reasons.

Well, so much for your statement that you support honest and open research. Like I said, you couldn't care less about the risks and you don't want to know about them. The rest of us do

And you speak to me as you did about misquoting? More projection on your part. I am not opposed (I say it yet again) to studying anything, including risks. I have said those risks should be put on he scales of decision. What is evident here is that, to you, any risk is unacceptable.

For you that is fine, but you don't get to apply that to me and that is exactly what you are trying to do. Just as Osama would have me attend prayer 5 times a day to avoid the risk of allah's wrath, you would have me live by your standards so I am 'healthy'. Truth hurts don't it. One difference, to be fair, is that you wouldn't attack me trying to kill me, you would just see me jailed instead.

Gee, I thought you wanted marijuana available to the sick and dying. You don't? You only want it legal for YOU? Then I retract my statement

I want people to have access to what works for them bringing a positive impact. If that is a pill, so be it. If it is a joint, so be it. You just keep trying to spin OK?

Stop misquoting me. That's twice now in one post.

This is not a misquote. You have said that studies of smoking MJ should not be done. You have said in this very post itself that will never happen, you even launched an ad hominem in the same breath. You can't claim misquote on that one.

Ask (such and such) yourself about buproprion

First of all, I didn't ask that person a question, I asked you. Then you cite a singular reaction as evidence to support your position but then discount that exact same thing when the other side is offered to you (such as a case when somone says "it helps me with pain"), all at the same time claiming it shouldn't be studied at all. Which way will you have it RP? Seems you like trying to have it both ways alot, depending on when it benefits your personal position.

Lastly, it would occur to anyone's common sense that when taking a drug designed to help you stop smoking, that is to say something designed specifically to make you feel poorly as a deterrant to smoking, that smoking anything while taking it would not be such a good idea.

Now I get the big 'STFU', some advocacy of free speech you espouse RP, but then that is in line with your nature to control people who disagree with you(in line with denying studies from being undertaken) even going so far as to support legislation making your personal disagreements into criminal behavior worth jailtime.

I forgot. This is all about you, isn't it? What's good for you and screw the rest of society. Your rights over the rights of others

It isn't all about me RP, it is all about all of us. The best way to protect your own freedom RP is to protect everyone else's the same way you would protect your own, even when you disagree with what outcome those choices bring. I asked you before to explain something to me and without doing so you make another similar claim.

Therfor, I will ask again. If I grow a plant myself and imbibe it myself, how am I screwing the rest of society?

I do not seek rights above the rest of others RP, that would be you doing that. More projection. You are trying to stop others from doing what you consider to be to risky. I am not trying to stop anyone from doing anything or trying to make anyone do anything RP, don't you wish you could say the same thing to me?

I understand your argument perfectly RP. All of them you make, because I have followed your dissent on this subject. Most if not all the various forms of it that you present. Suffice it to say I read alot.

What you seem not to understand, or are intentionally trying to avoid, is the case I make to you. I seek an outcome where you can do things the way you see fit, in ways that do not infringe upon other's rights, and I can do that exact same thing. Was this statement not the very foundation of this Nation? This is what you find yourself arguing against and I don't think you even realize it.

Seeking something other than that, like complete prohibition, while at the same time barring any study, would indeed be what is petty and selfish. Controlling others behavior, when it is not infringing upon you, is also quite petty and selfish. More projection on your part.

[Just sayin]

I have and I will on anyone who misquotes me to score some "gotcha" points.

Better hit that button on yourself then RP. You have claimed a couple times that I don't care about risk and you have been shown that is not true. Say it again and you would have to hit that abuse button on yourself per your own standards.

Read your own posts dude.

[youngjim]

"Don't do that. You've been warned."

Show me where I've twisted your words and I'll be happy to apologize.

[robertpaulsen]

"Impure, right?"

Food?

"That is really what it is all about huh RP....what you want"

I don't want my money wasted, correct. If Soros, or NORML, or the MPP wants to fund a "smoked marijuana is medicine" study, more power to them.

"You are wrong when you say I don't care about risks."

YOU told ME that you didn't care about those 598 chemicals. So what am I to conclude? How are you going to "assess them for yourself"? Are you some chemistry major? You simply can't be honest, can you?

"I am not opposed (I say it yet again) to studying anything, including risks."

Oh, baloney. A QUOTE from you: "You may question chemicals RP, but that fact does not translate into a fact that I must question them as well. You worry about your risk and I will worry about mine."

Your post #127. No misquote whatsoever. And you tell me that you support studying risks? Looks like you're telling me you don't question those 598 chemicals and that I should mind my own business, doesn't it?

Using your own QUOTED words, therefore, you're a liar.

"I want people to have access to what works for them"

But NOT the sick and dying? Do you or do you not want the sick and dying to have legal smoked marijuana?. Quit your equivocating and answer the question.

"You have said that studies of smoking MJ should not be done"

WRONG! I said, "Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Studying it is pointless and a waste of money that could be better spent doing real research rather than promoting a social agenda."

You took that very specific statement and generalized it by saying, "Drug interactions you say? Oh wait, you deny such studies are warranted."

"Then you cite a singular reaction as evidence to support your position"

Is something wrong with you? Seriously. You're not right in the head.

YOU ASKED ME, "If you know of interactions today, please state them. Good luck with that RP." I did know. I gave it to you, along with a link. I EVEN GAVE YOU THE PERSON'S NAME!

What is your problem? If we knew ALL the drug interactions, we wouldn't need to study them, now would we? We don't know all the negative interactions -- that's the point! Yet you want patients to smoke marijuana.

"Lastly, it would occur to anyone's common sense that when taking a drug designed to help you stop smoking, that is to say something designed specifically to make you feel poorly as a deterrant to smoking, that smoking anything while taking it would not be such a good idea."

So Psycho_Bunny is an idiot? Why didn't you ask her?

"Now I get the big 'STFU'"

Yep. Because you have no idea what you're talking about. Comparing marijuana contaminated with salmonella and aspergillus (which has actually killed patients) with pills contaminated by the bacteria on a pharmacists hands is ludicrous.

"If I grow a plant myself and imbibe it myself, how am I screwing the rest of society?"

You're violating the law.

"I am not trying to stop anyone from doing anything"

Neither am I. As a matter of fact, if you recall, I said if you want to smoke marijuana, be my guest.

[robertpaulsen]

"Show me where I've twisted your words and I'll be happy to apologize."

My bad. I didn't pay attention to who posted it and assumed it was Just sayin. The post, therefore, should have read, "Just sayin knew full well from my post that I was talking about smoked and inhaled marijuana, yet he chose to twist my words to be funny."

"but this kind of commentary is grossly bad form."

Twisting my words is bad form also.

[robertpaulsen]

"You have claimed a couple times that I don't care about risk and you have been shown that is not true."

You said, "You may question chemicals RP, but that fact does not translate into a fact that I must question them as well. You worry about your risk and I will worry about mine."

Your quote speaks for itself.

[Mojave]

Here is some more reasoning for you. If someone does something, for whatever reason, and it only affects them and it doesn't affect you, why are you worried about it?

If you want to be a doper and wallow in filth all day long, it doesn't worry me. If you wind up in prison, that doesn't worry me either.