Oh boy.

You guys are going to love this!

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

The article describes how cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals and also kill cancer cells. Then it finishes off by saying that the US government has known for more than 35 years...

paging Faceman

paging someone forgot to use their troll account

Guess after they did the study they forgot to hand it in being such stoners and all

oh thermite's gonna love that troll accusation.

Mild side effects include, hunger (munchies), thirst (pasties), colour enhancement, sound enhancement and occasional schizophrenia...

2003 ?

Pot is a wonder drug that can be grown at home.
It can be used to treat a wide variety of medical problems currently be proffiteered by Drug Companies that have very powerful relationships with government.

But, Change is coming. Parts of Europe, South America, American States are slowly coming to the realisation that there is money to be made from commercialising Pot. Why raise Taxes when you could just Legalise Pot and gain more Taxes though it ?

Who would be against Pot Legalisation ?
Alcohol companies, Cigarette companies, Big Pharma, instead of seeing the dr for a sore arm you could smoke some pot to relive the symptoms (if they persist, see your Dr)

We even now have the capability to detect drivers using it.
I cant see a reason to Not Legalise it.

wow, maybe the government isn't the friend I thought it was

Isn't there a massive prison population percent over in the US that are there for just having weed on them since federal laws say they MUST have some prison time?

Who would be against Pot Legalisation?

People who stand to lose lots of money. It can only help people stop going blind and now apparantly helps fight cancer, along with helping those on chemo. Which would they prefer to sell to people? Cheap herbs or expensive medication to do the exact same thing?

big drug companies lose out.

pot has been used for hundreds of years as remedies for things, its only recent governments that have made it outlawed cause they couldnt make money on it due to ease of growing it.

Recommend watching Penn and Teller's Bulls*** episode on this. In fact, I recommend watching any topic they cover tbh.

wow, maybe the government isn't the friend I thought it was

made me spit my drink on my monitor

Dammit... I wasn't wearing my tinfoil hat when I read this.. now the man knows everything!

wow, maybe the government isn't the friend I thought it was

hahaha

Why wouldn't it be the drug companies manufacturing the weed and then selling it, thereby making shiploads?

You don't manufacture it, you grow it with love and care.

Like everything, need to weigh up the good against the bad...

i wish they would legalize it so i don't have to read s*** like this on the internet every second day.

its only recent governments that have made it outlawed cause they couldnt make money on it due to ease of growing it.

and this is why carrot farmers can't make a living - it's just too easy for the masses to grow their own

scoobs: the epitome of logic and wisdom as always

Cheap herbs or expensive medication to do the exact same thing?

So that's why medicinal marijuana is legal in some places? Surely "Big Pharma" wouldn't allow that...

i wish they would legalize it so i don't have to read s*** like this on the internet every second day.

reckon

how do conspiracy theorists manage to tie their shoes and get out of the house?

oh - of course. They don't, so they sit at their computer making s*** up

Excellent!

Now all I need is cancer for this to be useful.

Sounds as though pot just inhibits blood flow and the formation of new blood cells. Doesn't sound like its targeted at all.

A lot of cancer drugs aren't targeted particularly well but they work better than this sounds like it does.

no offence neffo, but I'm pretty sure I believe a link on the internet with the word ALTERNATIVE in the URL than your mainstream "medical science", more than I do your so-called "THEORIES" which are obviously sponsored by BIG PHARMA and the government. If you're so in love with that maybe you should go get some vaccinations which are PROVEN to cause euthenasia!! smart guy

how do conspiracy theorists manage to tie their shoes and get out of the house?

velcro

no offence neffo, but I'm pretty sure I believe a link on the internet with the word ALTERNATIVE in the URL than your mainstream "medical science", more than I do your so-called "THEORIES" which are obviously sponsored by BIG PHARMA and the government. If you're so in love with that maybe you should go get some vaccinations which are PROVEN to cause euthenasia!! smart guy

Haha /thread.

pretty sure I believe a link on the internet with the word ALTERNATIVE in the URL

although I'm all for pot legalization, i wouldn't consider the source an independent unbiased reliable media outlet.

So that's why medicinal marijuana is legal in some places?

It may be legal in state law, but federal law says that pot farms are still illegal. So it's ok to smoke weed if your doctor says you need it, but you can't buy it anywhere since that's illegal.

although I'm all for pot legalization, i wouldn't consider the source an independent unbiased reliable media outlet.

does that mean you got trog's point?

The site links to it's references, including the study in a government database. The article also explains why this hasn't been reported on YOUR favourite news source.

And yes pharmaceutical and medical corporations are interested in staying in business rather than making themselves obsolete - why do you find that so ludicrous to believe?

last edited by thermite at 19:39:49 30/Jul/10

2003 ?

Pot is a wonder drug that can be grown at home.
It can be used to treat a wide variety of medical problems currently be proffiteered by Drug Companies that have very powerful relationships with government.

But, Change is coming. Parts of Europe, South America, American States are slowly coming to the realisation that there is money to be made from commercialising Pot. Why raise Taxes when you could just Legalise Pot and gain more Taxes though it ?

Who would be against Pot Legalisation ?
Alcohol companies, Cigarette companies, Big Pharma, instead of seeing the dr for a sore arm you could smoke some pot to relive the symptoms (if they persist, see your Dr)

We even now have the capability to detect drivers using it.
I cant see a reason to Not Legalise it.

Great lets legalise it.

We even now have the capability to detect drivers using it.
I cant see a reason to Not Legalise it.

You obviously don't know a lot of heavy pot smokers... I do... I was even one of em... a quarter of an ounce a week.

It can cause drug induced psychosis... which is like drug induced schizophrenia (imagine living your worst nightmare). Soon as you stop smoking pot you return to normal after a month or two, seen plenty of mates say it will never happen to them but it eventually catches em out.

I know first hand the detrimental effects of smoking pot, i love the smell of it, i loved growing it and loved the effects it gives but you eventually get to a point where if you spend more time stoned then straight your gonna get seriously screwed up mentally.

lol quart a week
even when I was a fri-sun smoker i was doing a quart, when i was living in a haze full time it was an oz a week fo rizzle
I did that for maybe 2 years, but smoked for around 8 years overall

I eventually got over it completely and now don't smoke at all because it just leaves me without my full cognitive abilities for days after I've smoked, but I didn't end up psychotic or brain damaged (objections noted from certain qgl patrons)

point being some people are predisposed to certain diseases and just because something triggers it in a small percentage of the population doesn't mean it should be totally banned
these people were likely going to develop it one way or another, be it another drug (prescription or illegal) or just over time

weedy you are just describing people who would end up addicted to something else anyway. (imm not conceding Pot is addictive) Some people have no self control. Ill bet all of your friends that are "psychotic" also smoke ciggys or nic up the pot.

You cant have a Society where you ban something because a small minority will abuse it. Why is some stuff thats abused legal and some other stuff that could be abused is illegal ?

Your friends must have already had some serious mental issues before they reached the stage of psychosis. Why do Alcys become Alcholic ? because they like booze ? or is it to change the way they feel about their problems ?

and of course the age old "alcohol/cigarettes actually kill people, not just make them psychotic, so why are they legal and pot is illegal yet it has never killed anyone"

weedy you are just describing people who would end up addicted to something else anyway. (imm not conceding Pot is addictive) Some people have no self control. Ill bet all of your friends that are "psychotic" also smoke ciggys or nic up the pot.

You cant have a Society where you ban something because a small minority will abuse it. Why is some stuff thats abused legal and some other stuff that could be abused is illegal ?

Your friends must have already had some serious mental issues before they reached the stage of psychosis. Why do Alcys become Alcholic ? because they like booze ? or is it to change the way they feel about their problems ?

Well if you compare the weed from the '60s-70s (before hydro) and the strains today you'll find that the older stuff is more "happy weed" rather than skunk. I remember when I smoked during the '70s I mostly got really happy (uncontrollable laughter) and the munchies. Recently, I've found the stuff to be just paralyzing with no munchies. I really miss the older weed.

Of course some might say there has been water under the bridge and also having PTSD doesn't help.

like anything, if you you do it too much you build up a tolerence.
I was never a huge pot smoker because i hated being totally off my nut and just laying there veging out. When you drink booze you can tell how much you are doing. You cant with pot. If it was legalised you'd know how much you were using and could control your usage a little better.

I havent came across any cases of people granted medicinal use of Pot that have developed a Psychosis.
Legalise it
Regulate it
Tax It

Legalize pot, tax munchies!

I havent

Why does your personal anecdote mean anything?

When you drink booze you can tell how much you are doing. You cant with pot. If it was legalised you'd know how much you were using and could control your usage a little better.

This makes no sense.

Yeah it does. He is saying that alcohol is served with labelling telling you how many standard drinks are in it. If weed was legalised it's likely it would be sold with the packaging information containing how strong or weak the weed is.

Haha keep it up faceman, soon you will reign supreme and be known as 'QGL cocksmoker, looney, fist you sister, champion of the world'.

Ive seen teq checkin out your stats, you dont want to be up against that nutter do you?

Yeah it does. He is saying that alcohol is served with labelling telling you how many standard drinks are in it. If weed was legalised it's likely it would be sold with the packaging information containing how strong or weak the weed is.

That's why the tiny Asian girls can drink as much as giant fat alcoholic bikers. I mean, holy f***, how did we survive thousands of years without the number of standard drinks per serve were on the side of the bottle? Apparently the only people who can tell if they should stop drinking/smoking-pot have super powers.

Thats cause its hydro you dingbat hurricanejim, bush is usually a sativa based plant which is that happy high in the head ur talking about.

Yeah it does. He is saying that alcohol is served with labelling telling you how many standard drinks are in it. If weed was legalised it's likely it would be sold with the packaging information containing how strong or weak the weed is.

Yeah, just like they do with cigarettes.

Oh... wait.

The labelling of drinks will probably vanish in the future when they discover that people base their drinking on what is the most potent. Not many places label the alcohol content. The utilisation for driving after drinking is s*** really, because its so dependant on the individual.

At this point proposition 19 looks like passing in California.
Wikipedia link because I'm lazy.

48 against, 44 for.

Not looking good actually.

Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities * Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption. * May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption. * May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.

48 against, 44 for.

Not looking good actually.

Recent polls have it anywhere between down by 4% and up by 16% (I've heard a few reasons for the high variability in this case including stigmatism associated with openly declaring a pro-drug stance, even if only to one poll operator), but on average the polls have it up. Still a long way to go till November though, so I'd expect the polling to become clearer closer to then.

Yeah, just like they do with cigarettes.

Oh... wait.

I thought they did have ratings for cigarettes?

Yeah, just like they do with cigarettes.

Oh... wait.

I thought they did have ratings for cigarettes?

Nope. Or at least they don't have numbers on them any more.

Recent polls have it anywhere between down by 4% and up by 16%

The reason I went with the 48/44 one was because it had the highest sample and because it was the most recent (Field poll). They also seemed to provide weightings for demographics, wasn't sure if the other polls did that.

There's more on the breakdowns here and why there may be more accuracy in the automated polls, or live operator polls. It's all just speculation though until the actual poll happens.

That's why the tiny Asian girls can drink as much as giant fat alcoholic bikers. I mean, holy f***, how did we survive thousands of years without the number of standard drinks per serve were on the side of the bottle? Apparently the only people who can tell if they should stop drinking/smoking-pot have super powers.

So let me see if i understand your position.
You believe that giving the consumer information about a product is a bad thing ?

I think his point was, you shouldn't have to have alcohol % on bottles to make good choices about drinking. Having the added information is useful, but its only useful as a rough guide, because everyone processes alcohol differently, so having a label that says "this is one standard drink" is less useful if yo're a tiny Asian girl, or a gigantic biker dude, because you're not statistically 'standard'.

IIRC they don't have alcohol %s on bottles in California (at least I distinctly remember looking at several bottles wondering what the % was and never finding it)

But the tiny asian girl will already know this after previous experiences and having been able to access information on the product. Thats how people make informed decisions.

Education not Prohibition.

IIRC they don't have alcohol %s on bottles in California (at least I distinctly remember looking at several bottles wondering what the % was and never finding it)

I had thought this was the case throughout the States.

According to , its only for states that implicitly require it. I can't actually remember seeing it anywhere.

Then again they don't exactly do standard drinks in the states.

Does the place selling the Alcohol have to list its strength along with the price ?

Whenever Im drinking a new drink or havent drunkled it for a while I always check the Alc%. I think its really important if you are driving to be able to make sure you under the limit. I wonder what the drink driving rate is in America ?

Typically the same as here. Generally its 0.05%.

Although they have the requirements of due cause to breath-test someone. No RBT road blocks, etc.

If you need to be able to check Alc% to know whether or not your safe to drive, you really shouldn't be driving.
I thought it was 0.08 in most States too.

Not providing the amount of alcohol on the bottle in the USA is really annoying I found. Suggesting the people are better off relying on their subjective feeling of drunkeness is quite silly. I'd argue the same goes for THC or other psychoactive compounds. Having a known amount allows the individual to predict their response based on past experience (they are not forced to accept that they can have X "standard" drinks).

I agree with scooter there, thats like some idiot only being aware of the signs on the road instead of everything in their sight with normal checks on sides and rear.

Probably just better if you didn't drink, if your driving faceman.

for once faceman actually has a point, however.

giving consumers more information is never a bad thing.

I'm in Pennsylvania right now, and the legal limit is 0.08% (lowered from 0.10 in 2003 apparently). In the few states I've been in (most recently here and New York) I can't remember seeing any % on bottles.

Although they have the requirements of due cause to breath-test someone. No RBT road blocks, etc.

That's a point of contention and what I thought too, until I got over here and found out they do RBTs exactly like in Australia late at night (where I am at least*). And I've heard stories of people being both sucessful and unsucessful in getting fines overturned arguing that it's illegal to set up an RBT station and bulk breath test traffic without sobriety tests.

*It's a college town, so the majority of people grew up out of town and many say this is one of the few places they've seen or heard of doing RBT screening of drivers.

Actually the US is 0.08% sorry. No idea where I got the idea it was 0.05% from.

The problem with alcohol content on the labels is that people use that information to make an informed choice on what will get them the drunkest for the cheapest.