Getting High Is Just As Good Now As An Atheist

[bilby]

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.

Apoptosis: How Cannabis Causes Cancer Cell Death | Arbors Wellness

A look at how cannabis naturally causes cancer to “kill itself” on a cellular level. Visit The Arbors Wellness blog for more.

arborswellness.com

Cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer – the evidence so far

Right now there isn’t enough reliable evidence to prove that any form of cannabis can effectively treat cancer in patients.

news.cancerresearchuk.org

Study Reviews How Marijuana Compounds Inhibit Tumor Growth And Kill Cancer Cells

A recent scientific review concludes that marijuana’s legal status should be revisited given existing research that shows cannabis’s components can inhibit tumor growth and help with cancer management. Researchers at Amity University in India detailed the scientific literature surrounding the...

www.marijuanamoment.net

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?

I don’t need any. I just need to point out that your evidence doesn’t adequately support your claim.

Which I have done.

You are making a claim, so you have the burden of demonstrating it’s veracity. You have not yet done so, so you are still making an unfounded claim. I don’t need to do jack shit other than wait for you to substantiate your claim; Until you do that, I am completely justified in rejecting your claim.

That’s how it goes.

Any other approach would require me to believe every half-baked claim about anything. Which would be insane.

 

[FievelJ]

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.

Apoptosis: How Cannabis Causes Cancer Cell Death | Arbors Wellness

A look at how cannabis naturally causes cancer to “kill itself” on a cellular level. Visit The Arbors Wellness blog for more.

arborswellness.com

Cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer – the evidence so far

Right now there isn’t enough reliable evidence to prove that any form of cannabis can effectively treat cancer in patients.

news.cancerresearchuk.org

Study Reviews How Marijuana Compounds Inhibit Tumor Growth And Kill Cancer Cells

A recent scientific review concludes that marijuana’s legal status should be revisited given existing research that shows cannabis’s components can inhibit tumor growth and help with cancer management. Researchers at Amity University in India detailed the scientific literature surrounding the...

www.marijuanamoment.net

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?

I don’t need any. I just need to point out that your evidence doesn’t adequately support your claim.

Which I have done.

You are making a claim, so you have the burden of demonstrating it’s veracity. You have not yet done so, so you are still making an unfounded claim. I don’t need to do jack shit other than wait for you to substantiate your claim; Until you do that, I am completely justified in rejecting your claim.

That’s how it goes.

Any other approach would require me to believe every half-baked claim about anything. Which would be insane.

Whatever, you sound more like an idiot prohibitionist against its legalization, believing everything the Government says.
And you do have to prove something as I have listed links to possible links to cannabis treating cancer.

So your so called word means nothing. Lets see a source to prove Cannabis does nothing for cancer.

 

[Jarhyn]

between reflexes and design considerations.

It’s the design considerations.

Your claim of effectiveness for reflexes is as convincing as the claims that homeopathy (or cannabis) cures cancer, in patients who don’t discontinue their chemotherapy.

So you're saying if your moving towards something and not paying attention and notice it, it requires no speedy reaction and no bad thing will befall because we designed it well?

It's often to their senses and reacting in ways that unfuck the situation, often because people design things around the way people reflexively react, so that those reactions are at least a little useful, in my experience.

I have never claimed homeopathy cures cancer, nor cannabis. If you make that claim one more time we will have problems.

I suggested cannabis may help prevent it through plausible mechanism. Indeed, filling out lungs with fairly sticky fluid and transporting that fluid out is how our lungs naturally remove particulates. Modifying this process with a non-carcinogenic fluid that augments the process with additional viscosity to drag bits of crazy carbon chemistry out is what I expect is happening.

I suspect this doesn't work so well with tobacco because the carrier oils and compounds are both water soluble and carcinogenic! Instead of encapsulating carcinogens with tobacco, you expose yourself to a snail trail of cancer all the way back up.

It's been well established that cannabis oils are not in any way significant causes of cancer, and they have properties that suggest this behavior, being both resistant to solution in water, sticky, and readily makes solution with exotic hydrocarbons (significant environmental sources of cancer).

I personally think it bears investigation and interest rather than accusations akin to homeopathy.

It's not like we can't all see that despite the fact that potheads have historically smoked like a Tudor chimney, they seem not to get cancer as expected. Burning shit and inhaling the result, you would expect that to have some impact but not for the potheads who smoke something with significant fractions of a non-carcinogenic heavy oil.

There's an effect happening there. I think it would pay to understand what it is.

Not to cure cancer, but maybe to help mitigate it with at risk populations.

As to homeopathy, all that cures is thr dishonest of both their morality and their momentary desire to make money.

 

[bilby]

Whatever, you sound more like an idiot prohibitionist against its legalization, believing everything the Government says.

Sure I do.

Cannabis use is enjoyable, and probably not particularly harmful.

It should certainly not be illegal.

Your attachment to unsupported woo claims isn’t evidence that anyone who rejects those claims is your ideological enemy, or disagrees with every position you hold.

Grow up.

 

[bilby]

I have never claimed homeopathy cures cancer, nor cannabis. If you make that claim one more time we will have problems.

I haven’t made that claim once.

Is it Poor Reading Comprehension Day today?

 

[SIB]

Think through this. Weed can help with some of the symptoms of cancer, not stopping it.

 

[FievelJ]

Whatever, you sound more like an idiot prohibitionist against its legalization, believing everything the Government says.

Sure I do.

Cannabis use is enjoyable, and probably not particularly harmful.

It should certainly not be illegal.

Your attachment to unsupported woo claims isn’t evidence that anyone who rejects those claims is your ideological enemy, or disagrees with every position you hold.

Grow up.

Grow up?
I have and have been researching this stuff since the 90s when near no one supported legalization.
There were links to possible treatment using cannabis back then too.

This is not something I just researched recently and found, I have been researching this stuff since as said the 90s.
Late 90s was when California legalized medical marijuana, but the feds back then would not leave it alone.
Now it is legalized for recreational purposes as well as for medical purposes.

Even if it does not help cure cancer, it at least enhances quality of life while in treatment.
Some might call that treating it.

Tommy Chong has had cancer twice, he is still alive.

 

[bilby]

Even if it does not help cure cancer, it at least enhances quality of life while in treatment.

Yes, it does.

Some might call that treating it.

But they would be wrong. That’s not to say that it shouldn’t be done, of course.

The big problem for me is the US federal prohibition, which makes legalisation very difficult for other nations due to US intransigence on treaty obligations - California can exempt itself from this part of the stupid War on Drugs, but Australia or the UK cannot, until the US Federal Government agrees to allow it.

 

[Elixir]

If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Thing is, it doesn’t have to really work to really work. All it has to do is make the patient feel like it works. It’s not about prolonging life. Of course it’s not literal medicine unless filed under something like analgesics.
We always forget that if we live long enough we will get cancer.

 

[southernhybrid]

Just like any drug, whether "natural" or developed in a lab and prescribed by a medical provider, some people have very untoward side effects from cannabis. My sister becomes very paranoid if she uses weed. Some teenagers who use a lot, develop extreme episodes of vomiting. There is no drug that is safe and effective for everyone.

Cannabis is made up of many different chemicals. My goofy neighbor gave me a Delta 8 gummy that she had bought from her chiropractor. She told me to try it for pain. It almost made me pass out. I sat on the sofa trying to get up but I could barely move. I finally asked my husband to help me to the bedroom. I told my neighbor that her quack, I mean chiropractor better warn people about the dosage and possible severe side effects. Delta 8 is similar to Delta 9 ( THC ) but I don't think it's been researched much. It's illegal in some states. The dose I was given was way too much for me, but I did sleep well that night.

CBD is being marketed as a treatment for just about everything. I guess for some it's a great placebo. My doctor sells it. Money! Money and more money!

So, I assume we are primarily supposed to be talking about how nice it is to get a little buzz with a good strain of weed. Yeah. It's nice, but it's not a miracle cure. It helps alleviate the symptoms of some diseases like MS and Parkinson's. It doesn't cure those diseases, any more than it cures cancer. But it can help with the symptoms and side effects of the disease and in some cases, the treatments. And, maybe a dying person will feel more relaxed and comfortable if they don't totally have to deal with reality. But, everyone copes differently. Religious people get their high from prayer and the priest or chaplain. To each her own.

I'm sure you all know that it was legal in the US at one time, but it was made illegal primarily for racist reasons. I think the barrier to federal legality now probably has something to do with the religious right and the asshole conservatives who feed that group. But, a lot of people have wanted it to be make legal again for many decades. That's not a new thing. The dumbass federal government is losing a lot of revenue from keeping it illegal, but the Puritans have way too much influence when it comes to things like drugs etc.

 

[FievelJ]

If cannabis cured or even treated cancer, we would have evidence beyond the random musings of pot-heads on internet fora.

Thing is, it doesn’t have to really work to really work. All it has to do is make the patient feel like it works. It’s not about prolonging life. Of course it’s not literal medicine unless filed under something like analgesics.
We always forget that if we live long enough we will get cancer.

Just like any drug, whether "natural" or developed in a lab and prescribed by a medical provider, some people have very untoward side effects from cannabis. My sister becomes very paranoid if she uses weed. Some teenagers who use a lot, develop extreme episodes of vomiting. There is no drug that is safe and effective for everyone.

Cannabis is made up of many different chemicals. My goofy neighbor gave me a Delta 8 gummy that she had bought from her chiropractor. She told me to try it for pain. It almost made me pass out. I sat on the sofa trying to get up but I could barely move. I finally asked my husband to help me to the bedroom. I told my neighbor that her quack, I mean chiropractor better warn people about the dosage and possible severe side effects. Delta 8 is similar to Delta 9 ( THC ) but I don't think it's been researched much. It's illegal in some states. The dose I was given was way too much for me, but I did sleep well that night.

CBD is being marketed as a treatment for just about everything. I guess for some it's a great placebo. My doctor sells it. Money! Money and more money!

So, I assume we are primarily supposed to be talking about how nice it is to get a little buzz with a good strain of weed. Yeah. It's nice, but it's not a miracle cure. It helps alleviate the symptoms of some diseases like MS and Parkinson's. It doesn't cure those diseases, any more than it cures cancer. But it can help with the symptoms and side effects of the disease and in some cases, the treatments. And, maybe a dying person will feel more relaxed and comfortable if they don't totally have to deal with reality. But, everyone copes differently. Religious people get their high from prayer and the priest or chaplain. To each her own.

I'm sure you all know that it was legal in the US at one time, but it was made illegal primarily for racist reasons. I think the barrier to federal legality now probably has something to do with the religious right and the asshole conservatives who feed that group. But, a lot of people have wanted it to be make legal again for many decades. That's not a new thing. The dumbass federal government is losing a lot of revenue from keeping it illegal, but the Puritans have way too much influence when it comes to things like drugs etc.

What is clear to me is more research is needed, as well as real human trials and not just lab tests.
There's no real wrong answers, we just do not know enough to make claims either way at this point.

 

[steve_bank]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

It's utterly clear that weed is far safer than alcohol.

Some of the long term studies being reported might say otherwise. Possible long term loss of cognitive ability.

 

[steve_bank]

I mix dabs of live sugar in my flower then smoke it both up. It usually hits me harder at first.

Who else still likes to get high? (Cannabis).

I hope that this is not too short.

Not since around 1974 and I have never missed it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll point out that in any study, they're going to want to control for initial cognitive ability, if there are claims cannabis use reduced it.

There may be a selection bias insofar as moderate to low-intelligence people will probably cleave to "the law" and their decline to 0 over time will be less, whereas the ability to reject stupid laws and do what you want generally implies there's a bigger drop to realize over time, there.

You could just be seeing "potheads have more long term decline because they're declining to the same destination as everyone else from a higher point on average".

What is the defense available in the data against such biases?

 

[Elixir]

Dam, I usedta mustabin real smart.

 

[steve_bank]

Pot can be associated with violence just like alcohol. I knew one person in assisted living who developed lung disease from chronic po t smoking.

In a news report a teen who used high concentrations with vaping became schizophrenia.

There appears to be a correlation between chronic pot usage and developing schizophrenia especially when young. Dosing the brian while it is developing and while a kid can;'t tell his ass from a whole in thr ground can't be a good ting.

Alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs are a major driver for long term health care costs. I saw thast in the hispotal, a nursing home, and assisted living. From what I have seen chronic long term pot users are as addicted as tobacco users.

The early argument in the 70s was if tobacco and alchohol are no banned why shoud pot. There is trurth to that, but society has to pay for long term consequences of all three.

Think about it, you are your own lab rat in an uncontrolled experiment.

Is there a link between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders? | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia), depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy to determine.

nida.nih.gov

 

[FievelJ]

Pot can be associated with violence just like alcohol. I knew one person in assisted living who developed lung disease from chronic po t smoking.

In a news report a teen who used high concentrations with vaping became schizophrenia.

There appears to be a correlation between chronic pot usage and developing schizophrenia especially when young. Dosing the brian while it is developing and while a kid can;'t tell his ass from a whole in thr ground can't be a good ting.

Alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs are a major driver for long term health care costs. I saw thast in the hispotal, a nursing home, and assisted living. From what I have seen chronic long term pot users are as addicted as tobacco users.

The early argument in the 70s was if tobacco and alchohol are no banned why shoud pot. There is trurth to that, but society has to pay for long term consequences of all three.

Think about it, you are your own lab rat in an uncontrolled experiment.

Is there a link between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders? | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia), depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy to determine.

nida.nih.gov

And you posted a .gov website, I do not trust anything which is funded by the Government.

PS

Just about all of that can be proved false. The Government's current job is to say anything to keep it illegal.
Name 10 people who got cancer as a direct cause of pot.

 

[steve_bank]

Trying to have a logical debate on drugs with a drug user is like trying to point out negatives of religion to a Christian.

Exagerating paranoia and fears is a long known facet of pot use. As the song goes 'pranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you are always afraid'.

On the flip side of a biasedgovt anti drug study I expect there is selection bias by those trying to prove benefits of pot, LSD and psilocybin .

Personally I do not like to hang out with drinkers, pot smokers, or tweekers for that matter. They tend to be emotionally and physically unreliable. Both tobacco and pot smoke smell disgusting. Both tobacco and pot smokers care how it affects other people.

Part of the attraction is doing something dangerous and illicit. In the 60s-70s it was about doing drugs and playing the underground game. Buying and selling small quatites of pot and drugs.

 

[FievelJ]

Trying to have a logical debate on drugs with a drug user is like trying to point out negatives of religion to a Christian.

Not really. Marijuana is not that much a drug, and it does have possible medical applications.

Exagerating paranoia and fears is a long known facet of pot use. As the song goes 'pranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you are always afraid'.

On the flip side of a biasedgovt anti drug study I expect there is selection bias by those trying to prove benefits of pot, LSD and psilocybin .

Personally I do not like to hang out with drinkers, pot smokers, or tweekers for that matter. They tend to be emotionally and physically unreliable. Both tobacco and pot smoke smell disgusting. Both tobacco and pot smokers care how it affects other people.

Why are you lumping them together?
Pot is different from most drugs, as it does not harm the body like most other drugs.
Many people out there are living proof of this.

Part of the attraction is doing something dangerous and illicit. In the 60s-70s it was about doing drugs and playing the underground game. Buying and selling small quatites of pot and drugs.

The only attraction for me is it makes me feel good.

How old are you btw, your spelling is shitty, and you sound like some 12-year-old.
Gain a better brain.

 

[Elixir]

Trying to have a logical debate on drugs with a drug user is like trying to point out negatives of religion to a Christian.

Not unlike trying to discuss it with a “drugs are evil” type.

How long should one use a drug with no discernible ill effect before concluding that it is innocuous?

How old are you btw, your spelling is shitty, and you sound like some 12-year-old.
Gain a better brain.

Steve is no dummy. Neither is he a spring chicken. The typos and misspellings he puts down to poor eyesight and physical ailment. I think his main objection to pot is unfounded, and his conclusions about it are relics of age-related ossification of opinion. (There may be drug that helps with that )
But that’s just my take, based on over a half century of smoking pot and a couple of decades or more of reading Steve’s posts.