• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Getting High Is Just As Good Now As An Atheist

Pulitzer Prize winning Natalie Anger, who writes about biology, describes marijuana as a way for women who are anorgasmic to obtain orgasm. She mentions that all of her female family members used weed to experience orgasm. As a young woman, I never found that necessary, but as a post menopausal woman, I sometimes refer to it as Viagra for women.

Anger wrote her book, "Woman" in 2000 and she mentions that medical cannabis has never been approved as a way to improve women's sex lives. Hmmmm. Could that have anything to do with our male dominated healthcare system?

Of course we don't really know the negative effects of long term usage of cannabis, as not nearly enough research has been done, due to the stupid US laws that keep it illegal on the federal level. There certainly may be long term effects, especially if one uses from sun up to sun down. I've often predicted that when enough of us baby boomers become really old, there might be a new disease known as THC dementia, sort of like alcoholic dementia. Ironically, a drug that contains THC has been used to treat Alzheimer's but it didn't seem to be very effective. At least not for my former patient. Still, maybe if one has dementia, a little cannabis might help calm down the agitation that so many with AD experience.

I've never driven while under the influence of any recreational drug. I also think it's cruel, and stupid to lock up a person for using a substance in the safety of their home. What a waste of law enforcement, not to mention the cost of incarceration. As some of you mentioned, there are many human habits that have the potential to be harmful, including many branches of organized religion.

But, right now, I thought we were talking about getting high, which at least temporarily takes a little of life's misery away. Perhaps if used in moderation, no harm will come. It doesn't seem to have harmed that old guy, Willy Nelson.

Btw, is it 4:20 yet?
If there's any long term damage to heavy cannabis use we would see it in many people by now.

Cheech and Chong. Snoop Dogg. Seth Rogen, Who smoked in front of Steven Spielberg. Seth MacFarlane. Seth Green. Morgan Freeman. Many people use cannabis without adverse effects. Never have they actually linked a cancer case directly to cannabis, if anything they have found that it helps treat cancer and not causes it. Willie Nelson quit tobacco, after he had a lung collapse a couple times. He replaced his ordinary cigarettes with joints instead, now he doesn't smoke anything. He uses cannabis in other forms, his reason is to give his lungs a break.

The research you speak of has already been done, even without a government's help. They are always finding things cannabis can help treat, and certain forms which help more than others. Raw cannabis shakes helps with liver damage from alcohol. They can make lotions from cannabis to treat certain types of skin cancer. Should one smoke then drive? NO. But they will drive better than someone who has had 6 drinks or more. Some people who smoke and drive will go like half the speed limit. They also often drive more cautiously as they know they are high, and often ask, "how am I driving?"

Cannabis use to be infused into medicine all the time until Harry Anslinger convinced everyone that it was one of the worse drugs in history.

The only way cannabis will kill a person is if a large bale of it falls on someone. Not one time in history has it been directly blamed for anyone's death. Not in using it that is. Mostly skeptics and prohibitionists still say more research is needed, as they are convinced there's long term adverse effects. None have ever been found in 1000s of years. There's actually fossil records of cannabis it has been here that long.
If adverse effects were going to happen we would have found them by now, don't you think? How do we know this? Finding mummies with a stash of weed on them. It has been being used for quite some time if adverse effects were to be found they would have found them by now.

Thanks For Reading.
I'm not convinced that it has no possible harmful long term effects, and despite your claims, there really needs to be more research done. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of cannabis and have used it for 40 years. The good thing in my case if that I never used it until I was over 30 and most of the research that points to permanent damage, refers to those who start using prior to the age of 18. There has been some research that the brain damage may not be reversible when people start using prior to age 18. This is believed to be do to the fact that their brains are far from being totally developed. We don't know enough yet if the brain changes that occur in adults are always temporary. The current research is often conflicting. I've read numerous academic studies that give evidence that cannabis does have a negative impact on the brain, but it may be only temporary. Unfortunately, these studies are limited.

When I look for evidence, I only consider studies done by medical universities or research labs, using proper protocols to be valid. The size of these studies is important etc. Research needs to be as objective as possible, so research done by a drug rehab facility or a group that has already decided that cannabis is always safe, aren't meaningful as they can't be objective.

Not everyone who is an alcoholic ends up with alcoholic dementia or liver damage, just like not everyone who smokes tobacco ends up with lung cancer or COPD. Just because a lot of people don't develop these diseases doesn't mean that others won't. We can list people who use cannabis who have no health problems, but that is only anecdotal. We don't know about the health of all the millions of people who use.

Cannabis is my only "bad" habit. I've never had a problem stopping using and I've never had any side effects as far as I know. To me, getting a little high in the evening simply helps cope with the negative aspects of life. It enhances music and art and helps with relaxation. I even have a medical MJ card that I use to obtain tinctures for my chronic arthritis pain. It doesn't help that much, but I only use it 3 days a week with my other analgesics, prior to doing an intense 45 minute aerobics workout. That shit is very expensive

. Of course, the older we get, the more susceptible we are to developing cognitive diseases, and we don't know all of the factors of why some people are sharp at 90 and some people develop dementia at age 65. I recently read an article that a percentage of people in their 70s and 80s are more creative and productive than younger folks tend to be. Why is that? I'd just like to know if using cannabis is a risk factor for cognitive decline. I cared for people with dementia for about half of my career. I've had patients with no risk factors at all, who still ended up with various forms of dementia, so it's an area that interests me greatly. But, I am really getting off topic and I'm perfectly straight. :)

Just about everyone has some unhealthy habits. Some people over eat or don't eat a balanced diet. Some people are too inactive, or drive too fast, take other risks etc. Using ETOH or THC in moderation may be harmless for most of us. I agree that ETOH is one of the more harmful drugs that people use. It's probably fine to have a few drinks a week, but some people seem to have a natural tendency to become addicted to ETOH. It's hard to know when a habit becomes harmful to one's health and well being, just as it's difficult to know if using cannabis for decades has caused any health problems that develop. It's often difficult to know the cause of a disease in any individual.

Plus, we don't know how much is too much. I read one study that evaluated some people who smoked 5 joints a day! I've never known anyone who used that much. Even most daily users usually only smoke a half a joint or less. As I sad, we really have a lot to learn about the long term effects of using. There is plenty of evidence that using has very negative impact on teenagers, probably due to the much higher TCH content now, compared to back in the day. And, sure medically, cannabis helps with some types of seizure disorders, PTSD, MS, nerve pain, Parkinson's and a probably a few other things.

Having posted all that, I fully support the legalization or at the very least, the decriminalization or all recreational drugs. It seems cruel and expensive for government to. use law enforcement and imprisonment just for using a drug that is potentially harmful. That is assuming they aren't driving or operating heavy machinery. Why not offer rehab to those who feel they want help breaking a habit, or safe ways of helping the folks who suffer from addiction of more harmful drugs. For example, needle exchanges for heroin users, safe places to use etc. That would be cheaper, and more humane.

Thanks for reading.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.
 
Assuming the "terpine tar" of cannabis isn't particularly carcinogenic or selectively lethal to carcinogenic things, it's consistency and ability to encapsulate and carry other chemicals away may support the idea that it helps more than it hurts?
Hints and rumours based on vague assumptions about mechanisms aren’t evidence either.

Show me double blind clinical trials which give an unequivocal consensus, or accept that this is just mythicism.

I get it. People want it to be true. But that’s not how reality works; People need to demonstrate that it’s true, or it’s not true.
 
Cannabis use is enjoyable, and probably not particularly harmful.

It should certainly not be illegal.

Nevertheless, it still doesn’t treat cancer. Though it’s been demonstrated to be very useful in mitigating some of the side effects of actual treatments for cancer.
 
Cannabis use is enjoyable, and probably not particularly harmful.

It should certainly not be illegal.

Nevertheless, it still doesn’t treat cancer. Though it’s been demonstrated to be very useful in mitigating some of the side effects of actual treatments for cancer.
I'm saying it bears further study, and there is clear grounds for mechanism.

Again I'm going to nitpick: "it has not been shown to..."

Saying it doesn't is as much a leap.

I don't think it cures, though. I expect it mitigates the exposure to environmental carcinogens.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
 
every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck
So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.
One of the major reasons why so many people are so bad at driving is the bizarre and counterfactual belief that good reflexes are a part of good driving.

If you are getting into situations that require reflex responses to get out of, then you are doing it wrong. Very dangerously wrong.
You get into situations that require reflexes because somebody wasn't paying attention. If everyone paid attention reflexes would be pretty much a non-issue. (Not entirely because I've had encounters with things that jumped out.)
 
every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck
So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.
One of the major reasons why so many people are so bad at driving is the bizarre and counterfactual belief that good reflexes are a part of good driving.

If you are getting into situations that require reflex responses to get out of, then you are doing it wrong. Very dangerously wrong.
You get into situations that require reflexes because somebody wasn't paying attention. If everyone paid attention reflexes would be pretty much a non-issue. (Not entirely because I've had encounters with things that jumped out.)
And to my point, it's the reflexes that are responsible for saves when people fuck it up, not dumb luck.
 
There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.

The problem with this is the notion that we know everything. The reality is we don't--I'm sure the vast majority of alternative medicine is bunk, but that doesn't say it all is. The problem is to actually figure these things out takes a lot of money and if it's natural there won't be any patent protection and thus no way to recoup the money.

Besides, it might be useful without doing anything to cancer--if it makes the patient more able to tolerate the side effects it will permit higher doses of the drugs that do work. Note that as of the last time I knew (admittedly old information) the best anti-nausea drug on the market was basically marijuana but inferior to smoking because you couldn't control the dose as well.
 
every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck
So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.
One of the major reasons why so many people are so bad at driving is the bizarre and counterfactual belief that good reflexes are a part of good driving.

If you are getting into situations that require reflex responses to get out of, then you are doing it wrong. Very dangerously wrong.
You get into situations that require reflexes because somebody wasn't paying attention. If everyone paid attention reflexes would be pretty much a non-issue. (Not entirely because I've had encounters with things that jumped out.)
And to my point, it's the reflexes that are responsible for saves when people fuck it up, not dumb luck.
No it’s not; That’s confirmation bias.

Nobody ever says “I wouldn’t have died if only I hadn’t reflexively swerved to avoid a sudden hazard, and gone straight into the path of an oncoming truck”. Because they’re dead.

And nobody even says “my reflex response made things worse”, because people are not keen on bragging that they did the wrong thing. Particularly when it has legal liability attached.

The results of unconsidered, unplanned reflex reactions by drivers are unpredictable and far from uniformly positive. But lots of people like to imagine that their own responses will always be magically able to save the day. Such people are dangerous, and shouldn’t be permitted to operate heavy machinery until they understand the depth of their error.

If you get into a situation where reflexes are engaged, and they turn out to have a positive effect, that’s just dumb luck. They could just as easily have made things worse. By definition, reflexes don’t include thoughts about consequences.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
 
every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck
So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.
One of the major reasons why so many people are so bad at driving is the bizarre and counterfactual belief that good reflexes are a part of good driving.

If you are getting into situations that require reflex responses to get out of, then you are doing it wrong. Very dangerously wrong.
You get into situations that require reflexes because somebody wasn't paying attention. If everyone paid attention reflexes would be pretty much a non-issue. (Not entirely because I've had encounters with things that jumped out.)
And to my point, it's the reflexes that are responsible for saves when people fuck it up, not dumb luck.
No it’s not; That’s confirmation bias.

Nobody ever says “I wouldn’t have died if only I hadn’t reflexively swerved to avoid a sudden hazard, and gone straight into the path of an oncoming truck”. Because they’re dead.

And nobody even says “my reflex response made things worse”, because people are not keen on bragging that they did the wrong thing. Particularly when it has legal liability attached.

The results of unconsidered, unplanned reflex reactions by drivers are unpredictable and far from uniformly positive. But lots of people like to imagine that their own responses will always be magically able to save the day. Such people are dangerous, and shouldn’t be permitted to operate heavy machinery until they understand the depth of their error.
Well, you've just explained the evolutionary selection pressure towards reflexes.

My point is, you don't see dead bodies every day.

I bet you don't even see them very often.




...Hopefully never.




So my point is that the accidents you see that are only avoided by dumb luck is just straight up bias against the concept that something consistently prevents it, between reflexes and design considerations.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I asked for evidence that it does not help, what is that evidence?
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I asked for evidence that it does not help, what is that evidence?
I know what you asked, and my response was a complete and sufficient one.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I asked for evidence that it does not help, what is that evidence?
I know what you asked, and my response was a complete and sufficient one.
I already listed some evidence, you are now the one with burden of proof.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I asked for evidence that it does not help, what is that evidence?
I know what you asked, and my response was a complete and sufficient one.
I already listed some evidence, you are now the one with burden of proof.
That’s not how it works.
 
Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him
Any use of cannabis in any form isn’t going to cure cancer of any type.

That a popular myth holds that “the right lotions” would have helped doesn’t make it true.

There is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’; The word for ‘alternative medicine that actually works’ is just ‘medicine’. If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Cannabis treats cancer just as effectively as homeopathy or acupuncture - that is, NOT AT ALL. Belief isn’t evidence. Popularity isn’t evidence. Evidence is evidence, and the absence of evidence is deafening.



Should I keep listing?
I advised you research, you probably did none.
My disagreement with you isn’t evidence that I am wrong, nor that I am unaware, nor that I have failed to “research” anything.

If you think that these three sources are of similar reliability, then it’s not surprising that you are committed to believing something that’s popular but untrue.

If you think that any of them are actual scientific papers describing properly conducted clinical trials, then you are unqualified to have an opinion on this subject at all.

You and I are both in the position of having done no research whatsoever here - unless you’re part of a clinical trial team, and haven’t mentioned it. What you are incorrectly calling “research” is actually a review of the research done by others; And the critical element of such a review is the ability to eliminate from it those claims that are not unequivocally backed by actual research.

The existence of other people who share your faith isn’t evidence in support of your faith.
What is your evidence that it does not at least help some?
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I asked for evidence that it does not help, what is that evidence?
I know what you asked, and my response was a complete and sufficient one.
I already listed some evidence, you are now the one with burden of proof.
That’s not how it works.
Oh no?
So how does it work then? I always thought you make a claim, then you back it up.
I have listed sources to back myself up, where's yours?
 
Back
Top Bottom