On the recurrence of discussions

[The Johnny]

So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.

Net, you made the claim that they have published studies/articles on all three kinds of pro-marijuananess. You are under the burden of proof for that claim.

Do you see how he tries to change the subject and weasel out of the original question? It's like RWHN wants me to hold his hand, read him each study, and explain what all the big words mean.

I provided him the evidence, the ball is in his court. I'm not doing his homework for him. It clearly has medicinal value, according to the National Cancer Institute, and typical use of marijuana in it's smoked form does no damage to people's lungs.

This is where he runs off to suck NIDA's dick and gargles the FDA's balls.

But Net, what guarantee do you have that it wont be overused and abused every single time, leading to everyone dying of lung cancer? 

[AFK]

But as Epi eludes to, the two articles you posted aren't saying what you said they were going to say.  I don't blame you to try to obfuscate and distract through ad hominems.  But next time you should have a cleare understanding of the science you are providing so you don't accidentally provide a false bill of goods.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

But as Epi eludes to, the two articles you posted aren't saying what you said they were going to say.  I don't blame you to try to obfuscate and distract through ad hominems.  But next time you should have a cleare understanding of the science you are providing so you don't accidentally provide a false bill of goods.

How false this bill of goods is, oh my:

Measuring participants' lung function for air flow and lung volume five times throughout the study period, the researchers found that cigarette smokers saw lung function worsen throughout the 20-year period, but marijuana smokers did not. Only the heaviest pot smokers (more than 20 joints per month) showed decreased lung function throughout the study.

"The more typical amounts of marijuana use among Americans are occasional or low levels," said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the study. "From the standpoint of being a scientist, these data suggest that low and moderate range use of marijuana do not do long-term harm."

Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[12]

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.

Net, you made the claim that they have published studies/articles on all three kinds of pro-marijuananess. You are under the burden of proof for that claim.

Do you see how he tries to change the subject and weasel out of the original question? It's like RWHN wants me to hold his hand, read him each study, and explain what all the big words mean.

I provided him the evidence, the ball is in his court. I'm not doing his homework for him. It clearly has medicinal value, according to the National Cancer Institute, and typical use of marijuana in it's smoked form does no damage to people's lungs.

This is where he runs off to suck NIDA's dick and gargles the FDA's balls.

But Net, what guarantee do you have that it wont be overused and abused every single time, leading to everyone dying of lung cancer? 

I FORGOT ABOUT TEH CHILDRENS!

[P3nT4gR4m]

If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS.

[The Johnny]

If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes 

It would be meta-licious at least.

Although it seems that the growth rate of drug discussion has died down, is it because everyone is tired of arguing, or because they see the general pointlessness?

[AFK]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I see nothing in what you posted about smoked medical marijuana.

[P3nT4gR4m]

If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes 

It would be meta-licious at least.

Although it seems that the growth rate of drug discussion has died down, is it because everyone is tired of arguing, or because they see the general pointlessness?

Your optimism is impressive to the point of being truly inspirational 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I see nothing in what you posted about smoked medical marijuana.

I see nothing in what you posted about why the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Medical Association would publish articles in favor of medical marijuana and typical use of marijuana. Your game rules for what constitutes reasonable debate are a mishmash of fallacy, double-standards, and dodging questions.

Smoked medical marijuana has been studied as well, and the research damns your position:

The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value [59] are obstacles to medical progress in this area. Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner [60, 61].

Smoking cannabis provides rapid and efficient delivery of THC to brain. THC can be detected immediately in plasma after the first puff of a cigarette; peak concentrations occur within 10 minutes, then decrease to approximately 60% of peak by 15 minutes and 20% of peak by 30 minutes, but there can be wide inter-individual variation in concentrations achieved [3]. Rapid onset and predictable decay means that self-titration of dosing is attainable.

Chronic Pain

A series of randomized clinical trials at the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) investigated the short-term efficacy of smoked cannabis for neuropathic pain. Sponsored by the State of California Medical Marijuana Research Act of 1999, and conducted under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Food and Drug Administration, this research allocated participants to smoke cannabis cigarettes containing from 1% to 8% THC by weight (4 to 32 mg THC) or to placebo cannabis cigarettes from which THC had been extracted. The total daily dose of THC ranged from 4 mg to 128 mg. Two trials enrolled patients with painful HIV peripheral neuropathy [4, 5]; one consisted of mixed neuropathic pain due to peripheral or central dysfunction of the nervous system (i.e., complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, and traumatic focal nerve or spinal cord injury) [6]. Patients were allowed to continue their usual regimen of analgesics. Results consistently indicated that cannabis significantly reduced pain intensity, with patients reporting 34%-40% decrease on cannabis compared to 17-20% on placebo. Moreover a significantly greater proportion of individuals reported at least 30% reduction in pain on cannabis (46%-52%) compared to placebo (18%-24%) [4-6], which is relevant since 30% decrease in pain intensity is generally associated with reports of improved life quality [7]. The number needed-to-treat to achieve a 30% reduction in pain intensity was 3.5-4.5, a range achieved by standard non-opioid analgesics (i.e., noradrenergic antidepressants and anticonvulsants). Interestingly "medium" dose cannabis cigarettes (3.5% THC) were as effective as higher dose (7% THC) [6]. In this same vein, a fourth trial employing an experimental model of neuropathic pain (intradermal injection of capsaicin) in healthy volunteers suggested that there may be a "therapeutic window" or optimal dose for smoked cannabis: low dose cigarettes (2% THC) had no analgesic effect, high dose (8%) was associated with reports of significant pain increase, and medium dose cannabis cigarettes (4% THC) provided significant analgesia [8]. Separately, another recent placebo-controlled, cross-over study of neuropathic pain due to surgery or injury examined the effect of 25 mg doses of smoked cannabis at various potencies (2.5%, 6%, and 9.4% THC by weight), administered three times daily for 14 days [9]. Results suggested that although lower potency dosing was ineffective, 9.4% THC produced modest but significant analgesic effects compared to placebo, in a sample selected for failure to respond to conventional therapy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358713/?tool=pubmed

[trippinprincezz13]

It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Why? Alcohol is legal for adult (21+) consumption. Illegal for children to consume but they are known to do so and abuse alcohol anyway. From what I've seen there are tons of prevention campaigns against underage drinking, counseling programs for kids with a substance abuse problem.

So how would having these same sorts of programs and sanctions, etc. in place allowing adults to consume it if they wish while still trying to address the problems with children and teenagers abusing alcohol or drugs, RUIN THINGS FOREVER?

Also, without a bunch of money going to the prosecution of drug users, maybe some of it can be diverted back to useful prevention and education programs.

(Since apparently this thread's about drugs now too and I haven't finished reading the last three pages)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"I'm not a prohibitionist, but I don't think it should be legalized."

Or words to that effect.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes these turtles go. 

It'll keep going as long as RWHN continues to make a complete ass out of himself, I guess. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.