Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #367,725 by crazy 12/12/12 8:03:27 AM 12/12/12 8:12:57 AM Reply	Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't articulate. And in your statement, limiting to serious conditions means there is a serious set of side effects that should be considered before prescribing it. Rethink. C'mon AS, do some more research. You'll come around. Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 08:12:57 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,744 by Another Scott 12/12/12 9:34:56 AM Reply	Project much? :-p Patience, grasshopper. All will be revealed in due time. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,745 by crazy 12/12/12 9:48:42 AM Reply	Hokay Take your time. I've had years working on this.

rc lectures bho - (rcareaga) - (135) - Dec. 8, 2012, 08:03:00 PM EST

WH replies can take months - (Another Scott) - (27) - Dec. 8, 2012, 08:39:52 PM EST

those 70yo were 25 in 1967, -NT - (boxley) - (26) - Dec. 8, 2012, 09:50:50 PM EST

precisely - (rcareaga) - (22) - Dec. 8, 2012, 10:03:50 PM EST

I would suspect you are correct sir -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 8, 2012, 10:50:09 PM EST

Reminds me of that old ad. - (mmoffitt) - (20) - Dec. 9, 2012, 09:04:31 PM EST

just to clarify - (rcareaga) - (18) - Dec. 9, 2012, 09:30:41 PM EST

Bingo - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2012, 07:31:39 AM EST

I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 08:34:55 AM EST

Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (jb4) - Dec. 18, 2012, 10:19:25 PM EST

Actually, we have discussed it. - (mmoffitt) - (14) - Dec. 10, 2012, 08:51:21 AM EST

Every single one of your points is based on illegality - (crazy) - (9) - Dec. 10, 2012, 04:53:52 PM EST

Read in New Scientist today: - (malraux) - (8) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:45:15 PM EST

Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE - (crazy) - Dec. 11, 2012, 03:13:16 PM EST

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (mmoffitt) - (6) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:36:14 AM EST

Ad hominem -NT - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2012, 09:32:11 AM EST

I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:10:00 AM EST

Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (malraux) - (3) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:10:03 PM EST

Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:11:18 PM EST

The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:29:34 PM EST

So what? - (crazy) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:18:03 PM EST

That would be dumb - (crazy) - (3) - Dec. 10, 2012, 05:34:01 PM EST

hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... -NT - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2012, 07:27:52 PM EST

Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... - (lincoln) - (1) - Dec. 27, 2012, 02:59:12 PM EST

Watch it - (crazy) - Dec. 30, 2012, 09:15:17 AM EST

Nicely programmed - (crazy) - Dec. 10, 2012, 07:20:21 AM EST

Yeah? - (Another Scott) - (2) - Dec. 8, 2012, 10:27:27 PM EST

make up your mind or read what you write :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2012, 10:51:21 PM EST

Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :) -NT - (Another Scott) - Dec. 8, 2012, 10:53:20 PM EST

excellent! -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 8, 2012, 09:51:15 PM EST

Well.. if he sees it-- - (Ashton) - Dec. 9, 2012, 06:56:54 AM EST

victims of federally legalized pot - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2012, 06:20:38 PM EST

Awwww - (crazy) - Dec. 10, 2012, 06:53:03 AM EST

Very sincere... - (folkert) - (94) - Dec. 10, 2012, 08:43:45 AM EST

Or kill someone else. - (mmoffitt) - (93) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:01:49 AM EST

neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless - (boxley) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:28:35 AM EST

Where does... - (folkert) - (3) - Dec. 10, 2012, 10:02:00 AM EST

No acknowledgement? - (folkert) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:42:44 PM EST

You need to reread your post and my follow up. - (mmoffitt) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:44:59 PM EST

Was inferred by the alcohol comment. - (folkert) - Dec. 10, 2012, 04:24:20 PM EST

Remind me: do you drink? -NT - (rcareaga) - (87) - Dec. 10, 2012, 10:02:25 AM EST

Red Herring much? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (86) - Dec. 10, 2012, 10:12:22 AM EST

Nope - (rcareaga) - (85) - Dec. 10, 2012, 10:24:22 AM EST

Steeper? Well, perhaps. - (mmoffitt) - (84) - Dec. 10, 2012, 11:51:51 AM EST

I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees - (rcareaga) - Dec. 10, 2012, 12:32:25 PM EST

yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody - (boxley) - (82) - Dec. 10, 2012, 12:48:23 PM EST

[citation needed] -NT - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2012, 12:49:45 PM EST

Re: [citation needed] - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:23:15 PM EST

That's not "fluoridation is bad" - (pwhysall) - Dec. 10, 2012, 02:44:12 PM EST

Red herring. - (Another Scott) - (78) - Dec. 10, 2012, 12:55:28 PM EST

Assumes facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (77) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:38:53 PM EST

Mixing up cause and effect - (drook) - (4) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:41:31 PM EST

So, the chicken came first? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:42:16 PM EST

According to the chicken, the rooster did -NT - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 02:31:20 PM EST

Yabut the rooster didn't care. -NT - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 10, 2012, 04:38:55 PM EST

lrpd that sucker -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 10, 2012, 01:54:01 PM EST

criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry - (rcareaga) - Dec. 10, 2012, 02:05:42 PM EST

It's a quagmire! -NT - (pwhysall) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 02:44:50 PM EST

No. - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 10, 2012, 03:27:44 PM EST

"how many years ago was that?" - (rcareaga) - (68) - Dec. 10, 2012, 08:05:13 PM EST

That was a good thread. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:24:27 PM EST

Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though. - (rcareaga) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:45:10 PM EST

Probably something long in one of the posts. - (malraux) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:47:19 PM EST

I think it was me. - (Another Scott) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:52:28 PM EST

Seconded. And I'm glad to see... - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 11, 2012, 11:03:03 AM EST

After all that... - (folkert) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:35:05 PM EST

Yup. I chuckled at that. -NT - (rcareaga) - Dec. 10, 2012, 09:46:15 PM EST

Holy smokes. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 11, 2012, 08:27:41 AM EST

Wow - (crazy) - (59) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:01:51 AM EST

dunno about anyone else but - (boxley) - (6) - Dec. 11, 2012, 06:30:28 PM EST

You show the female response - (crazy) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:26:43 AM EST

not nesting, invigourated -NT - (boxley) - (3) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:18:09 AM EST

Then you are not done. - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:19:25 AM EST

2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:20:47 AM EST

Longer delay, more prolactin - (crazy) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:29:44 AM EST

nope -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:00:56 AM EST

So why not cut out the middleman? - (Another Scott) - (38) - Dec. 12, 2012, 12:25:36 AM EST

Because THC alone is BAD - (crazy) - (17) - Dec. 12, 2012, 06:50:53 AM EST

Read that link again. - (Another Scott) - (16) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:09:20 AM EST

Remember, even if you find it - (crazy) - (4) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:14:48 AM EST

My goals: Rational, sensible policy. - (Another Scott) - (3) - Dec. 12, 2012, 12:51:45 PM EST

Seems the right time for this one - (drook) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:15:53 PM EST

Excellent. Thanks. - (Another Scott) - Dec. 12, 2012, 02:13:52 PM EST

Seen that one before... - (folkert) - Dec. 12, 2012, 03:39:30 PM EST

Phhh - (crazy) - (9) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:42:43 AM EST

Here's a couple. - (mmoffitt) - (8) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:49:46 AM EST

2007 - (crazy) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:57:16 AM EST

#2: Research CBD - (crazy) - (6) - Dec. 12, 2012, 09:03:47 AM EST

Can't have anyone curing cancer now... - (folkert) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:21:27 AM EST

Hmm... - (Another Scott) - (4) - Dec. 13, 2012, 02:41:40 PM EST

Puhleeze - (crazy) - (3) - Dec. 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM EST

Ad hominem. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2) - Dec. 13, 2012, 06:11:27 PM EST

Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and - (crazy) - (1) - Dec. 13, 2012, 09:06:51 PM EST

Pick your poison. - (Another Scott) - Dec. 13, 2012, 09:25:19 PM EST

Please don't assume my words - (crazy) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:56:09 AM EST

Better question: Why? - (drook) - (19) - Dec. 12, 2012, 07:59:29 AM EST

Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:12:57 AM EST

Project much? :-p - (Another Scott) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2012, 09:34:56 AM EST

Hokay - (crazy) - Dec. 12, 2012, 09:48:42 AM EST

Just asking the question. - (Another Scott) - (15) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:04:45 PM EST

But the laws now prohibit doing the science - (drook) - (14) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:17:03 PM EST

That's an easier law to change than the others. - (Another Scott) - (13) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:24:21 PM EST

Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. - (mmoffitt) - (12) - Dec. 12, 2012, 01:44:15 PM EST

Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - Dec. 12, 2012, 03:45:54 PM EST

Your straw man, not mine - (crazy) - (10) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:43:13 PM EST

You talking to me? - (Another Scott) - (9) - Dec. 12, 2012, 11:12:14 PM EST

I didn't say it was your job - (crazy) - (8) - Dec. 13, 2012, 05:56:35 AM EST

And how would that work, exactly? - (Another Scott) - (7) - Dec. 13, 2012, 08:37:05 AM EST

Easy - (crazy) - Dec. 13, 2012, 09:42:31 AM EST

View it from the other side - (drook) - (5) - Dec. 13, 2012, 10:14:13 AM EST

Thought experiments are easy. - (Another Scott) - (4) - Dec. 13, 2012, 10:56:45 AM EST

That's a crock - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 13, 2012, 10:59:57 AM EST

Read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Dec. 13, 2012, 11:10:05 AM EST

But the statement is wrong - (crazy) - Dec. 13, 2012, 12:07:37 PM EST

Different part of the issue - (drook) - Dec. 13, 2012, 12:25:55 PM EST

In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... - (mmoffitt) - (12) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:30:02 AM EST

Did I expect an actual reponse - (crazy) - Dec. 12, 2012, 08:36:11 AM EST

hey during that timeperiod - (boxley) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:02:45 AM EST

You were probably right - (crazy) - (9) - Dec. 12, 2012, 10:45:18 PM EST

Oh come on... - (folkert) - (8) - Dec. 12, 2012, 11:36:51 PM EST

Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me - (crazy) - Dec. 13, 2012, 06:41:04 AM EST

Also, interesting - (crazy) - (6) - Dec. 13, 2012, 06:26:46 AM EST

Do as you wish. Matters not to me. -NT - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 13, 2012, 10:19:57 AM EST

You're both coming across as mardy twats - (pwhysall) - (4) - Dec. 13, 2012, 01:31:00 PM EST

twats is a gendered insult -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 13, 2012, 01:41:14 PM EST

Not when I say it, it's not - (pwhysall) - Dec. 13, 2012, 01:47:29 PM EST

kiss kiss -NT - (crazy) - Dec. 13, 2012, 01:45:47 PM EST

You didn't like the Quagmire picture? -NT - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 13, 2012, 01:48:43 PM EST

Looks like my letter did the trick - (rcareaga) - (6) - Dec. 14, 2012, 01:50:14 PM EST

Woot! -NT - (Another Scott) - (5) - Dec. 14, 2012, 02:38:29 PM EST

Ok, I'm done - (crazy) - (4) - Dec. 14, 2012, 02:45:05 PM EST

Finally! - (Another Scott) - (3) - Dec. 14, 2012, 04:09:38 PM EST

hehe - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 14, 2012, 06:07:43 PM EST

Don't assume you know the future. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Dec. 14, 2012, 08:01:59 PM EST

Good point - (crazy) - Dec. 14, 2012, 08:12:40 PM EST

Another excellent IGM thread! - (Ashton) - Dec. 14, 2012, 09:12:06 PM EST

iwethey.org

No, I am your father.
340 ms