Marijuana Shown to Relieve HIV Nerve Pain

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

[Mojave]

Where in that definition does it say that "Major Medical Organization" has to label it a medicine for it to be considered a medicine?

Your label is false. The burden of proof is on you.

[Just sayin]

YOU told ME that you didn't care about those 598 chemicals

I told you they go on the scales of decision making. That statement alone shows I do care about them. I asked how many of those you are exposed to on a daily basis by other means. That would additional information to add to the scales you dismiss. It isn't that I don't weigh them RP, it is that I don't think they sink the scale to the side as you do. You yourself have said you need no scale right? Well I do. What you have done is try to make my words mean something they do not.

So then, if a group NORML was to produce a study, which they funded and operated, would you then dismiss the results as biased and thus, incorrect and without merit, or would you accept the oucome of said study?

It occurs to me you would most likely be coming full circle and claim that because such a study was not funded and undertaken by the government it is invalid. I offer that this is a way you try to have it both ways. Would you be willing to prove me wrong in that occurance and state clearly that you would accept such a study's merit if it was funded by private organizations? (Providing, of course, that data obtained in said study could be openly scrutinized?

Your quote of me does mean I don't question them at all RP, why must you try to make words mean something they do not? I will question them and assign risk to them as I see fit, as it pertains to my life. I thought I was abundantly clear on that point. Hopefully now, said in this way, you have a clear understanding of that position.

You should mind your own business. As I should mind my own when the context is in this area. Taking things out of context, trying to twist what they mean is underhanded RP. It is what people do when they cannot address the words honestly with words of their own. Now you call me a liar. I guess that is the best you got as you duck answering straight up questions with straight up answers.

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.

Are the sick , in pain, or dying considered people RP? Obviously they are. Again you try to spin in order to make my words mean something they do not. My words were straight to the point. And you know it, just like everyone else that just reads them for what they say. Stop being so intentionally obtuse.

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."

First, I ask you to post a definition of the word medicine. I did, if you disagee with it, please post another. Second, how can you sit there and say it isn't a medicine, when by the definition I provided...it clearly is, and then say it should not be studied? How does one get to your declaration by ingoring the definition of the word 'medicine' AND disallowing the study as well? Ideology, that's how.

RP, when someone is taking a drug to stop smoking and the drug is intended to make you feel ill when smoking as a deterrant, you are getting the desired reaction not an unwanted or unexpected interaction. I, more specifically this time, ask you to list interactions where the reaction is unintended when MJ is smoked.

You're violating the law.

Hold on a minute. I am breaking the law because I am harming society because I am violating the law because I am harming society because I am breaking the law....? If the reason it is against the law is because I am harming society, you cannot then say I am harming society simply by breaking the law. You need a reason for it to be illegal in the first place. That reason is? So, given the statement I made to you, in that context, why is it against the law?

Watch, you will answer because it harms society! A great way to claim you are answering the question when indeed you aren't even coming close to doing so.

...ludicrous.

Defined so because you simply don't agree. A very close family friend died at the hands of an antibiotic RP. The reason I say this.... somtimes bad things happen regardless of how hard you try to see that they don't. You can't demonize something away, in this case antibiotics, for use with every person on the planet because of it. Or will you now demonize antibiotics the same way you do MJ? You can't have it both ways RP, so which do you choose?

You back the goverment actions based on commerce clause and still say you aren't trying to stop anyone from doing anything? You argue at great length, for a whole host of reasons, not to allow people access to MJ for ANY reason at all and then sit there an claim you aren't trying to stop anyone from anything? C'mon RP, even you can see the hypocrisy in that. Can't you?

I used to think you were somewhat of a straight shooter, in your convictions that is, but I do see now that you will say one thing one minute and something opposite the next. I have learned much about you from this conversation, Thank You for that.

[Just sayin]

Your quote speaks for itself.

It sure does, it says 'I will worry about mine' (risk). Yet you try to present that I don't even question much less worry. My post stands as written and how it was meant. Read as written, it's meaning is not what you present it to be. You are trying to twist it to mean something it does not and you should stop, or, per your own standards you need to hit the abuse button on yourself as you said. You did say 'anyone' right?

[Just sayin]

You want to send me to prison for a couple one hits a couple nights a week trying to escape pain that pill after pill and spinal surgery did not address, the more power to you. Such a fellow freedom loving American I can call you huh? If that alone is to send me to prison, so be it.

I am sorry you consider seeking relief from pain as filth. I hope you never experience long term chronic pain yourself, for it is an ugly thing to love with.

[Just sayin]

Your label is false. The burden of proof is on you.

My label comes from the dictionary. Thus the burden has shifts to you.

[robertpaulsen]

"So then, if a group NORML was to produce a study, which they funded and operated, would you then dismiss the results as biased and thus, incorrect and without merit, or would you accept the oucome of said study?"

If anyone funded a study of smoked marijuana as medicine, I'd dismiss it. Even if the DEA funded it.

If NORML funded a study on smoked marijuana as medicine, I wouldn't even bother to read it.

"I will question them and assign risk to them as I see fit, as it pertains to my life."

Oh, so now you WILL question them? Well, that's not what you said before. And how, pray tell, will you "assign risk" on those 598 chemicals when you have no idea what they do?

I suggested we do research to isolate and remove the chemicals which may be harmful, keeping those that are beneficial. You say patients should be allowed to light up and inhale all 600 chemicals, hoping one or two may help them.

Now, how are they, or you, going to "assign risk"? What "risk" are you talking about and how will you "assign" it?

Gobbledygook.

"Are the sick , in pain, or dying considered people RP? Obviously they are."

Fine. Then I stand by my original statement that you're using the sick and dying as pawns -- despite your denial and saying that you were simply referring to your own wants. Which, again, we see was another lie.

"I did, if you disagee with it, please post another."

You said medicine was any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness. OK. Which major medical organization supports using smoked marijuana to treat some disease or illness? The AMA? The National Cancer Institute? The National MS Society? The American Cancer Society? The American Lung Association? The American Academy of Ophthalmology?

Now if you're saying that it's medicine because some stoned out doper is smoking marijuana to relieve the pain of his ingrown toenail, then your definition sucks.

"and then sit there an claim you aren't trying to stop anyone from anything?"

I'm not. I couldn't if I tried. Could I stop you from smoking? Of course not. So cool your jets. You want to smoke dope, smoke away.

"You argue at great length, for a whole host of reasons, not to allow people access to MJ for ANY reason"

Wrong. I argue to keep marijuana illegal. THAT'S what I argue. Stop with your "won't allow access" and "stop people from smoking".

[robertpaulsen]

"You want to send me to prison for a couple one hits a couple nights a week trying to escape pain"

For trying to escape pain? Of course not. For breaking the law.

I mean, you knew it was illegal, right? And you chose to do it anyways, right? So what's the problem here?

Are you saying you're not responsible for your actions? Is that it? Someone forced you to break the law? Are you .... whining?

[Mojave]

My label comes from the dictionary.

The word false comes from the dictionary too. Your label is false.

[Mojave]

You want to send me to prison

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.

[Mojave]

Now if you're saying that it's medicine because some stoned out doper is smoking marijuana to relieve the pain of his ingrown toenail, then your definition sucks.

You mean a wino's bottle of port isn't medicine?

[robertpaulsen]

"You mean a wino's bottle of port isn't medicine?"

Well, according to clown poster, if the wino says it's medicine, it's medicine.

[secretagent]

secretagent: "An "argument from authority" (majority rule)?"

robertpaulsen: "No, not at all. Through the legislative process. People expressing their will through their elected representatives who vote in various chambers, then signed by the executive, and approved as constitutional by the judicial."

OK. This sounds to me like another argument from authority, this time representative government instead of majority rule. Legislative might makes right?

[robertpaulsen]

"Legislative might makes right?"

Then what would you prefer -- a dictatorship? Oligarchy? Theocracy?

[secretagent]

What makes one system better than another? How do you choose?

[robertpaulsen]

"What makes one system better than another? How do you choose?"

You don't like a pure democracy. You don't like a representatrive republic. I'm asking you, what DO you like?

[aruanan]

Given the human body's cannabinoid receptors, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that there wouldn't be some treatments for disorders involving whatever the receptors modulate.

[secretagent]

You don't like a representatrive republic.

I never said that.

I wanted to know if you had any principle(s) you would like to see guide the legislators in self restraint.

Given the potentially infinite scope for reducing harm, broadly construed, where should legislators draw the line?

[robertpaulsen]

"I never said that."

Well, let's see. You said, "This sounds to me like another argument from authority ... Legislative might makes right?"

I'm supposed to interpret that as you like it? I mean, you framed this response identical to your response to a pure democracy (majority rule) -- Does that mean you also like majority rule?

"I wanted to know if you had any principle(s) you would like to see guide the legislators in self restraint."

Ah. So when you said, "This sounds to me like another argument from authority, this time representative government instead of majority rule", you were really asking if I had any principle(s) I would like to see guide the legislators in self restraint.

Why didn't I see that?

I'll tell you what -- why don't you tell me what it is you like about a representative republic, and we'll start there?

[secretagent]

So far, I haven't seen you give any principle or guideline for limiting government, representative or otherwise.

I gave you mine, which you don't seem to like. OK, show me a better idea.

Can representative governments legally enact laws that transgress their proper limits? On what basis do you evaluate their proper limits?

[robertpaulsen]

"I gave you mine, which you don't seem to like."

A) You gave me a Libertarian philosophical theory which had no connection to reality. B) The definition of harm can be so broad as to include behaviors which are prohibited under today's laws.

"OK, show me a better idea."

I'm quite content with the current one. A representative republic, with legislators limited by both the constitution and the people who elected them to office.

If the people don't want certain laws, they can let their representatives know about it. You would attempt to limit their right to choose how they will live.