Marijuana use

Post #98,593 by Simon_Jester 4/24/03 4:28:01 PM Reply	Marijuana use is still in debate, but advocates have argued it primarily for anti-nausa and glucoma.
Post #98,626 by bepatient 4/24/03 8:18:22 PM 4/24/03 10:19:29 PM Reply	They aren't advocates... ...those are [link\|http://wilkes.edu/~kklemow/Cannabis.html\|>DOCTORS<]. Presently, C. sativa has four medicinal values. First, it is used to relieve nausea and increase appetite. Second, it brings about the reduction of intraocular pressure in glaucoma. Third, it causes a reduction of muscle spasms. Fourth, it provides relief from mild to moderate chronic pain (Anon., 1996a). POST EDIT: #1 is particularly important for chemotherapy patients...where it is frequently recommended by doctors. oh...and... In a study in 1982, researchers analyzed the biological effects of chronic use of marijuana in human subjects. Pathological and biochemical tests were in a normal range. Chronic use did not produce serious, harmful effects in humans and a general medical examination showed no abnormalities. The researchers also concluded that marijuana can act as a hypotensive and reduce blood sugar, which is useful for treating hypertension, especially diabetic hypertension (Singh et al., 1981). Face it folks, you are dealing with someone who has an irrational belief structure surrounding cannabis sativa...a naturally occuring substance that humans have been enjoying for thousands of years. It seems to be based on actual circumstances, making it all the more difficult for him to do anything but remain rigid in his beliefs. The fact that the rest of us know or have known human beings that did not turn into stupified, laid back, long haired hippie freaks with an IQ somewhere between a shoe size and Ozzie the first time they sparked a doobie will be quite lost on him. Give up already. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient April 24, 2003, 10:19:29 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #98,720 by mmoffitt 4/25/03 10:49:05 AM Reply	Good Christ! We agree. It seems to be based on actual circumstances, making it all the more difficult for him to do anything but remain rigid in his beliefs. The fact that the rest of us know or have known human beings that did not turn into stupified, laid back, long haired hippie freaks with an IQ somewhere between a shoe size and Ozzie the first time they sparked a doobie will be quite lost on him. Well said. The fact that my experience differs so much from what has apparently been everyone else's makes it impossible for any of us to move an inch. Doing so would be betraying what we "know" from experience ("know" quoted intentionally). A possibility that I don't think exists for any of us here. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #98,728 by bepatient 4/25/03 11:02:36 AM Reply	Sort of, yes we do. I've a tendency to believe you are attributing too much blame to the substance and not enough to the irresponsibility of the person involved. But not knowing the specifics of your situation, that is a guess...maybe an educated guess...but a guess all the same. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!