Marijuana: Facts and Myths

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Sir Nills doesn't accept "secondary referencing"... which is virtually everything on the world wide web.

So much for the best research tool in the world!

Pre-internet, now that's when it was easier for folks in charge to pull the wool over our eyes because finding out the truth was so much more difficult.

Not like now.

--Roots Daughter

It is online, it's called online journals, the original studies are also online. It takes a little bit of effort and independent thinking.

Sill ignoring my questions?

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Sir Niall, you wanted to see the evidence and the research and I was glad to supply you with them in the 6 Cancer Gate videos from YouTube. But I guess you didnt really want to see it as you only response was to nitpik at Rick Simpson and what he says. You did not comment at all on the scientific research and there was a lot of it featured in the videos. Did you watch the other 5 vids?

If you can still call 5000 years of cannabis as a medicine "anecdotal", how many years does it take for you to accept that it is not anecdotal? Another 5000 years perhaps? If you are waiting for the World Health Organization to approve it or waiting until cannabis is available in it's pure form on the NHS, I have a feeling you will be waiting a very long time. Maybe your children's children will see it but I doubt you will.

You ask for research but when it is provided and you dont even look at it, has me questioning your real motive for being anti-cannabis medicine.

To be honest with you Puffin, i completely forgot the other five videos. Mainly because i answered the other posts here, but also because my criticisms of the studies to cant think apply to Rick Simpsons work.

Anecdotal evidence will never be appropriate alone in a environment with no other factors controlled will not ever constitute evidence for Medical Science research. It may be uncomfortable for you, but Medical Science is a legitimate important science, it has certain regulations that must be adhered to to ensure the development of discipline moves on in the way it has been so far. This can't be changed in the case of Cannabis, Cannabis is like any other potential medical chemical, it has no special place. Therefore anecdotal evidence will not be enough with Cannabis as with everything else.

What you call ' Nit-Picking' i call criticising, perhaps Puffin if you done the same you might see the holes in alot of the Cannabis for Medicine theories?

How unrealistic for me to wait for the Healthcare experts to approve a medicine before i take it? I've not brought my medicine out the boot of a car and i'm not starting now.

I think Puffin, given the studies i have looked at (granted only one of the videos you offered, but tbh i doubt there'll be much on there that hasn't be quotes already) its completely wrong and mis-representation to say i haven't looked at research. This pisses me off because people who are blindly pro-Cannabis accuse me of not reading the facts, it is patently the other way around, how many of the studies i've provided have you looked at? How many questions i've asked have you addressed? How many points about the problematic issues of studies have you addressed? How many methodology issues i've brought up have you addressed?

My problem with talking about Cannabis with blink Pro-Medical use believers is simple, no matter how many questions i bring up they're ignored/not answered while at the same time being accused of not reading the research.

So, i'll do as i've done throughout this thread; look at the research provided, criticise it, provide other studies and proceed to have my points ignored while being told MAN YOU"RE IGNORING THE RESEARCH!!

What reason for my Anti-Medical views could there be. It can't because there's truth in them right? It's got to be because i'm some type of Big Pharma plant in the forum to ruin the name of the heal all plant, that magical thing, Cannabis.

[bleak]

How unrealistic for me to wait for the Healthcare experts to approve a medicine before i take it?

In most other situations, yeah, you would want to wait until its been tested.

Unfortunately, cannabis is a special case in that its been demonised because of special interests. It HAS been tested and its medical benefits scientifically understood as early as the 1970's. There are individuals in power who know it cures many diseases and are staying quiet. Don't believe it? The US government has a patent on cannabanoids for medical use FFS!!! Look it up for yourself, its patent number 6630507 and can be read here:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html

Its blindly obvious that that most governments around the world are telling a big fat lie when it comes to cannabis, that it has no legitimate medical use. Whether or not you believe it 'cures cancer', cannabis absolutely DOES help with many conditions, this can't be disputed. At the minimum, it causes relaxation, pain relief and appetite simulation. Its what stoners have known forever, but those are medical uses right there.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

At the minimum, it causes relaxation, pain relief and appetite simulation. Its what stoners have known forever, but those are medical uses right there.

Right, and what have been saying all along?

Cannabis is not the evil weed some media sources want to portray, it is not the benign substance the other side of the coin want to portray. It's truth, as with everything in the world, is in the grey areas. It can be helpful, equally it can be dangerous. Not enough is known to claim either way, i am not rubbishing Cannabis as a medical substance

As much as it's blatantly obvious the Governments lie about the relative harms of Cannabis i think it's pretty obvious this new ' Cannabis cures everything you don't need Pharmaceuticals ' is equally as big of a lie.

cannabis absolutely DOES help with many conditions, this can't be disputed.

Obviously not read my post regarding Constain then?

[DC]

Ever get the feeling that debating against 'faith' is a total waste of time?.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Ever get the feeling that debating against 'faith' is a total waste of time?.

I'm glad someone else see's what i'm saying, i was starting to question my own sanity!

[bleak]

ahh, well after reading back a few pages, I can see that you enjoy debates Sir Niall. I don't mean any disrespect by that, and I'll smoke a spliff with you any day

Right, and what have been saying all along?

Well, I never said anything to the contrary did I? You're taking simple sentences and turning them into arguments against you, which shows you are strongly on the defense.

Obviously not read my post regarding Constain then?

No, I didn't actually. So what?

I take it you read through my complete ACD post history before replying to my post? In case I had previously said something that has bearing on this discussion?

Feel free to enlighten me about Constain, as I don't want to be accused of ignoring evidence. Whats so hard about posting the link again or telling me how to find it, rather than paying me out for not having read all your posts?

If you wanna discuss it like human beings instead of lawyers in a courtroom, I'll be here. But I'm guessing the thread will continue to be a flame war, in which case you probably won't hear much from me... I'd rather be silent than get angry about petty forum debates

Again, no disrespect to anyone, lets keep it above the belt right?

[bleak]

it's pretty obvious this new ' Cannabis cures everything you don't need Pharmaceuticals ' is equally as big of a lie.

Agreed. Cannabis can't replace every single medicine, although I believe it can replace a surprisingly large number of them, for a large number of people.

I don't see cannabis replacing viagra for example. Or the stuff they use to knock you out for operations. Those are just 2 examples off the top of my head.

I don't know who said "cannabis cures everything", but I guess that person hasn't really thought through their statement. Or they meant "everything" more as a figure of speech to mean "a lot of things", instead of in a literal sense.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

The point about Constain is explained in an earlier post, and this illustrates my point of different expectations for those disproving a theory to those trying to prove it.

If you wanna discuss it like human beings instead of lawyers in a courtroom, I'll be here. But I'm guessing the thread will continue to be a flame war, in which case you probably won't hear much from me... I'd rather be silent than get angry about petty forum debates

Again, no disrespect to anyone, lets keep it above the belt right?

There's no flame war, look back in the posts, i haven't flamed anyone. I've been sarcastic with people who have been sarcastic back. Ultimately man, my points remain unanswered, if anyone would like to give it a go it might constitute a debate?

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

it's pretty obvious this new ' Cannabis cures everything you don't need Pharmaceuticals ' is equally as big of a lie.

Agreed. Cannabis can't replace every single medicine, although I believe it can replace a surprisingly large number of them, for a large number of people.

I don't see cannabis replacing viagra for example. Or the stuff they use to knock you out for operations. Those are just 2 examples off the top of my head.

I don't know who said "cannabis cures everything", but I guess that person hasn't really thought through their statement. Or they meant "everything" more as a figure of speech to mean "a lot of things", instead of in a literal sense.

It was used to describe the ideas of people who are claiming Cannabis cures Cancer etc. It is described as the most useful medicine by alot of the pro-Medical side, that's what i'm addressing.

[bleak]

The point about Constain is explained in an earlier post, and this illustrates my point of different expectations for those disproving a theory to those trying to prove it.

erm.... alrighty then.

<sound of footsteps walking away>

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

The point about Constain is explained in an earlier post, and this illustrates my point of different expectations for those disproving a theory to those trying to prove it.

erm.... alrighty then.

<sound of footsteps walking away>

[DC]

I'm just wonering, If I have a pain in my big toe and I whack my thumb with a hammer. Can I say I used the hammer for medicinal purposes because I don't feel the pain in my big toe anymore?.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

I'm just wonering, If I have a pain in my big toe and I whack my thumb with a hammer. Can I say I used the hammer for medicinal purposes because I don't feel the pain in my big toe anymore?.

Going by the apparent standards of evidence here; if you say it works for you we should ignore all the medical fields view on it and start doing it ourself!

[DC]

Nah dude, if I tell somebody else it works for me and they tell somebody else who then summarises, makes an opinion...then tells it to you as fact.

Puffin, why don't you back up what you're saying with anything other than the usual suspects group of youtube vids. Even if Niall hasn't looked at the Cancer Gate vids, he will, then as usual get back to ya with a reply. In the meantime, how about you get back to him on the 'nitpickin' he did on the Rick Simpson interview, which to some is actually seen as 'vaild points'. Whatever, I'm just interested in seeing you get involved a tad deeper than gospel style preaching and youtube videos.

Also Interesting to see how when confronted with somebody that can actually be bothered researching all angles of the subject matter, some of you guys just huff, spit out yer dummy.....and run away?.

4 to 1?.....well handled.