Thanks.

Post #347,190 by Another Scott 9/2/11 8:41:14 AM Reply	Thanks. Pain mediation is a big problem. J's father was on various opiates for a long time. Not good, but there weren't any alternatives.... I'd be more comfortable pontificating on marijuana if there were modern studies of its effectiveness. Unfortunately, due to the politics, there aren't (in the US anyway). http://www.nytimes.c.../19marijuana.html A big EU report from 2008 - http://www.emcdda.eu...nographs/cannabis Part II, Chapter 6 is a 28 page .PDF on health effects but many of them are "not conclusive". Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,215 by crazy 9/2/11 12:23:43 PM Reply	No prob That's the problem with those with no experience. Pain is 100% subjective. Pain meds are prescribed based on weight, but the doctor can increase up to point of relief, unless it kills you via breathing suppression. Or destroys your stomach and intestines. Let me try to give you an idea of my tolerance to pain. Sitting here, smoking a hand (rolling machine) rolled smoke, I often will drop an ash on my inner arm. Very common. Sometimes, though, I'll have just relit a smoke, and a cascade of red hot embers will fall, some quite large. No shirt on, they can go anywhere and just lay there. I know that sudden moves have a high possibility of screwing up my back and shoulders, so I've trained myself to simply accept the burn for a couple of seconds before moving. And then I'll plug and crush with my calloused fingers, rather than brush them off and take a chance on starting a fire. Have you ever sat there while an ember burned into you, in a sensitive area, and took a moment to decide which course of action is least painful? Same issue when driving, but wind blowing can cause an ember to flare up. Or a distracted me to crash the car. Hell, they go out most of the time if I just wait. Usually. Pain mediation is a big problem. J's father was on various opiates for a long time. Not good, but there weren't any alternatives.... No. They were there. Your unwillingness to address the issue did not remove the existence of the alternatives. Sorry. I'd be more comfortable pontificating on marijuana if there were modern studies of its effectiveness. Unfortunately, due to the politics, there aren't (in the US anyway). There are many. Here's where you find them: http://www.treatingyourself.com/ Start reading the back issues. Do you (or someone you know) have a family history of Alzheimer's? START SMOKING NOW! Really, they know exactly how it protects you from it. A big EU report from 2008 - http://www.emcdda.eu...nographs/cannabis Part II, Chapter 6 is a 28 page .PDF on health effects but many of them are "not conclusive". At what point, of what conclusiveness, would you actually think the general legal system will care? Unless the political system changes. When the reports are generated by the current political system, and not likely to get much further, at least in YOUR lifetime. This looks like reliance on some type of false authority to tell you what to do in an important area. In you own home. Without affecting anyone else. And you simply defer to it. I used to think a bit more highly of you. Do a little reading and get back to me.
Post #347,224 by Another Scott 9/2/11 7:37:28 PM Reply	Don't jump to conclusions so easily...
Post #347,225 by crazy 9/2/11 7:55:20 PM Reply	"Experience" not as a smoker But as someone who uses it for long term pain issues. And if you do, then obviously I'm confused.
Post #347,226 by Another Scott 9/2/11 8:19:14 PM Reply	I'm not going to go into details. What I was trying to say was that: 1) I don't think we (as a species) know all that much about the science of what it does to people's brains over the long term, what it does to people whose brains are still developing (those younger than ~ 25), what it does to people who have abnormal brains, etc. 2) Opiates were very effective in controlling J's father's pain. He was on long-acting (MS-Contin) and quick acting (Percoset) opiate pills. That doesn't mean it was good for him to be on them for as long as he was and at the dosage he was getting (e.g., before they moved in with us he would go through a 30 day supply of Percoset in ~ 10 days...). There's more involved with them than simply controlling pain. I want our society to treat drugs rationally. I want science to guide decisions about them. I'm suspicious of categorical statements like "pot is a gateway drug!" and "pot is harmless!". I want us to get to the point where the NIH has more say on drug laws than the DEA. I don't want our drug laws to be used to punish people who aren't endangering others. I want our society to help those who get in over their heads in addiction. At the moment, the NIH and researchers at universities can't answer questions that need to be answered about the effects of these things on our bodies because of political restrictions. That's all. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,229 by static 9/2/11 9:15:15 PM Reply	From the outside looking in. I have never smoked (anything) and don't have relatives or friends with drug problems that I'm involved with. But I have long had interest in documenataries about society and that includes drugs. Nicotine itself is not harmful and there is debate about if it's even addictive. But the easiest delivery system into the human body is smoking it and that does bring a lot of other chemicals (especially in cigarettes) most of which are harmful and some are addictive. THC is likewise a chemical unique. Heroin, Cocaine, MDMA, etc etc are deadly and addictive. This has been proven again and again. Marijuana is a different beast. From what research I have seen, it could only be considered a "gateway" drug only from social factors. That is, some of the structures in place to acquire it are (or were) the same as for other drugs. Or if and when even they really are different, people seeking "something else" don't know how to tell them apart. Alcohol is arguably as dangerous as heroin. But it's legal? I think this is a quirk of history. Society has developed, grown, developed, progressed and been changed by the inclusion of alcohol. As a culture, we know what it does. A society without alcohol is almost impossible to imagine. But marijuana is an outsider. It just hasn't had the same stage presence in the theatre of history as alcohol. As a culture we don't know what it does. Medically, I believe it should be safe to legalise its use; it is clearly beneficial to a substantial subset. Culturally, I'm not so sure. Just as there will always be idiots who get behing the wheel of a car when they're more than three sheets to the wind, there will be people who embark on activities they shouldn't when stoned. IMO, that's the danger of legalising it. (And we haven't even touched on the intensive farming practices...) Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #347,231 by crazy 9/2/11 9:20:17 PM Reply	Huh? Nicotine itself is not harmful and there is debate about if it's even addictive. Huh? Are these people also debating the flatness of the earth?
Post #347,233 by static 9/2/11 9:36:54 PM Reply	Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't check my research. It is addictive but on it's own, not inordinately so. There are also documented cases of other benefits to brain function. But my point was that there is arguably more chemical danger from everything else in the cigarettes than the nicotine. Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #347,236 by Another Scott 9/2/11 9:44:11 PM Reply	That's contrary to what I think I know about it. Nicotine is extremely addictive. It's also a deadly poison in higher doses. http://en.wikipedia....icotine_poisoning Sixty milligrams of nicotine (the amount in about 30-40 cigarettes [1]), has the potential to kill an adult who is not a smoker[2] if all of the nicotine were absorbed. This figure is ~120 mg in chronic cigarette smokers, smoking an average of 20 non-light cigarettes delivering ~1.7 mg of nicotine each daily. One cigarette's-worth of nicotine is enough to make a toddler severely ill. In some cases children have become poisoned by topical medicinal creams which contain nicotine. [...] The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 0.5-1.0 mg/kg can be a lethal dosage for adult humans, and 10 mg for children[2][4]. Nicotine therefore has a high toxicity in comparison to many other alkaloids such as cocaine, which in mice has an LD50 of 95.1 mg/kg. A person can overdose on nicotine through a combination of nicotine patches, nicotine gum, and/or tobacco smoking at the same time. [5][6] Spilling an extremely high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can result in intoxication or even death since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream from dermal contact.[7] HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,242 by crazy 9/2/11 11:37:16 PM Reply	It also DIRECTLY causes lung cell cancer Even if it shows up via the blood stream.
Post #347,243 by crazy 9/2/11 11:38:46 PM Reply	You've been brain washed by the Tobacco Institute Our country debunked all their propaganda during the lawsuits 20 years ago. Obviously the rest of the world still believes them. Wow.
Post #347,247 by static 9/3/11 7:00:37 AM Reply	You're being side-tracked. Disregard the comments about nicotine in my original post, then. It wasn't an important. The post was about the uniqueness of marijuana compared to other dangerous drugs both legal and illegal. (For whatever its worth, I saw a study some years ago that showed genuine improvements to memory and recall with nicotine, particularly absent the other chemistry from a cigarette. I'd be surprised if this was funded by the tabacco industry as it was part of a quality documentary series about the poisons we willingly ingest. That episode was about tobacco.) Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #347,248 by Another Scott 9/3/11 8:19:21 AM Reply	Small amounts of many things are like that. Nicotine is a stimulant similar to some other brain chemicals. In small amounts it can enhance things - http://en.wikipedia....al_nervous_system In the central nervous system Effect of nicotine on dopaminergic neurons By binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, nicotine increases the levels of several neurotransmitters - acting as a sort of "volume control". It is thought that increased levels of dopamine in the reward circuits of the brain are responsible for the euphoria and relaxation and eventual addiction caused by nicotine consumption. Nicotine has a higher affinity for acetylcholine receptors in the brain than those in skeletal muscle, though at toxic doses it can induce contractions and respiratory paralysis.[20] Nicotine's selectivity is thought to be due to a particular amino acid difference on these receptor subtypes.[21] But many other chemicals are like that - some benefits (sometimes important benefits) in small amounts while toxic in larger amounts, too. http://www.actionbio...nt/trautmann.html Cigarettes are bad. Cigarettes are primarily a nicotine delivery device because nicotine is addictive (thus cigarettes are very profitable for the manufacturers). Nicotine is too strong a poison to play up its benefits "absent the other chemistry from a cigarette" - it's not delivered that way. But one can easily argue that tobacco built America, so it's not totally black and white... My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,261 by crazy 9/3/11 1:22:34 PM 9/3/11 1:31:42 PM Reply	Depends if you are not an American and you are dying of lung cancer. Types the American holding the smoke filled with tobacco imported from Sweden, which was originally grown in the US. I make my poor choice with full knowledge of the danger. I met the DBA that worked for the state of FL that was in charge of the information gathering that led to the Tobacco lawsuits. While they were in the middle of the process, before they won. She was HOT! And married. Not so happily. But I didn't get anywhere with her other than hang out for a couple of days. So anyway, from an outsider's viewpoint, I'd assume they see us as a recovering crack addict. We are no longer directly addicted but we are poor. And we make money by selling addictive drugs such as tobacco and lie about them. We can't lie to the US people, and we have to put those ugly pictures and sayings on the smokes, but when we sell them outside of the country, we can say they CURE cancer if we want to! Seems ALL black to some people. Edited by crazy Sept. 3, 2011, 01:31:42 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #347,230 by crazy 9/2/11 9:17:54 PM Reply	I agree on your 2 statements . I'm suspicious of categorical statements like "pot is a gateway drug!" and "pot is harmless!". I know they are both bullshit. I've pointed out the various known downsides in the past. The point is simply it is a highly capable painkiller and anti-inflammatory and the benefits kick in at lower doses than the mind effects. And the side effects are far less. And this is something WORTH fighting for. Don't forget, in the beginning of this exchange you compared it to LETHAL substances. Which means you have far more holes in your knowledge than usual, and were in the process of spreading misinformation about it.
Post #347,234 by Another Scott 9/2/11 9:37:39 PM Reply	I guess I was less clear than usual. I wasn't comparing pot to opiates - at least I wasn't intending to. I was bringing up opiates (later on) because they are regulated in the same category as pot (not that I think they should be). Opiates are similar to natural pain suppressors and that's why they work so well for pain control - http://thebrain.mcgi..._par_heroine.html I brought up "other controlled substances" earlier because, it seems to me, if MM Dispensaries are shown to have value in distributing MM, and their reason for being was for pain control and so forth, then a natural extension would be for distributing other less conventional pain control medications. Stuff that would need to be carefully titrated. I don't think I'd want a cross-eyed stoner mixing such things for me. YMMV. ;-) I know that pot and opiates aren't similar even though they're both Schedule I. Your posts in this thread have elaborated on the differences, and I appreciate that. I'm sorry if I was giving the impression that I thought they were similar. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,241 by crazy 9/2/11 11:36:12 PM Reply	Holy sh*t. Not the gateway drug argument again?! if MM Dispensaries are shown to have value in distributing MM, and their reason for being was for pain control and so forth, then a natural extension would be for distributing other less conventional pain control medications. Stuff that would need to be carefully titrated. I don't think I'd want a cross-eyed stoner mixing such things for me. YMMV. ;-) And a slippery slope as well. If some day this came to pass you may have an issue to worry about. But right now I think you need to stock up on flying unicorn poop cleaner, since it has the same level of effect on the issue.
Post #347,246 by Another Scott 9/3/11 12:04:59 AM Reply	<sigh> I give up. :-(
Post #347,385 by Ashton 9/5/11 4:27:08 PM Reply	Don't see a reason to go all wonky on AS's position here.. As usual, he is pellucid about the "nature of" his reservations on most pop-koans du jour. Maybe as in, 'all generalizations are False--like this one'. I subscribe to that wariness, too. Much of what we 'Know' often proves false. Takes Work to delve. On any topic. (Initially I setled for the [NOVA] NASA engr's thesis re the Hindenburg / fire triggered via thermite(!) -initiated dope in the paint: turns out those numbers Don't Crunch--established later by traditional, meticulous scientific assessment with the necessary numbers --about temp/energy and chemical 'reaction rates'.. ) Bad moi. IMO, the Genuine-reason for the hostility against MM is equally transparent(ly) bogus --as so Many things in our backward, illiterate, innumerate psychotic culture: Big Pharma Cannot Make its traditional obscene/endless PROFITS without that BIG fucking Â ..and all the rest is just disingenuous spin of the "both sides do bad things" "Repos-are just-the-same-as-Demos": Jesuit reductio, so beloved of the gullible or other mindless intransigents.. When truthiness conflicts with Greed: we know who the god Is, in vulture capitalist domains. Don't we?

Welcome to IWETHEY!