Can't have anyone curing cancer now...

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #367,750 by folkert 12/12/12 10:21:27 AM Reply	Can't have anyone curing cancer now... Curing Cancer would drop the bottom out of pharma that produces massive amounts of really expensive drugs. You really think a grown plants is going to be able to be "allowed"... never. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,824 by Another Scott 12/13/12 2:41:40 PM Reply	Hmm... http://www.cancer.go...bis/patient/page1 Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,846 by crazy 12/13/12 6:00:41 PM 12/13/12 6:03:17 PM Reply	Puhleeze Go to a study and try to disprove it, don't point to a government / industry mouthpiece. You might as well tell Gryg to trust the AMA on saturated fat issues. Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM EST Expand All History
Post #367,848 by Another Scott 12/13/12 6:11:27 PM Reply	Ad hominem.
Post #367,863 by crazy 12/13/12 9:06:51 PM Reply	Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and I will. This is the cancer subthread, so I assume that, right?
Post #367,869 by Another Scott 12/13/12 9:25:19 PM Reply	Pick your poison. Scroll down and tell me where they're wrong. Here's a direct link to the FAQ - http://cancer.gov/ca...bis/patient/page2 Or, if that's too conversational, click on the Health Professional Version tab and go to town - http://cancer.gov/ca...ealthprofessional Let me know where they're wrong. Hint: "In writing Cancer Information Summaries, PDQ Editorial Boards review current evidence. They do not make recommendations or develop guidelines. Their work is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This summary on Cannabis and cannabinoids does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. The summary statement represents an independent review of the literature; that review is not influenced by NCI or any other federal agency." HTH. Cheers, Scott.

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

Department of Redundancy Department
125 ms