No sunshine, nature isn't going to be happy until we force ourselves to live on less of it.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
weed
- Thread starter briand420
- Start date
No sunshine, nature isn't going to be happy until we force ourselves to live on less of it.
Zeddicus
Member
- Jun 23, 2008
- 43
- 2
- 6
No sunshine, nature isn't going to be happy until we force ourselves to live on less of it.
no no no
i beg to differ good sir, nature won't be happy untill we harvest it through reuseable ways. Things such as wind power, river dams, UV rays, and underwater currents will one day take over the worlds power supply, the reason they have yet to get big is because so little of the energy there is being harvested. UV energy panels for example only harness around 40% of the suns rays. The future of humanity will be aaking care of the enviroment while it takes care of us. Things like fossol fuels are horrible forms of one time energy release. wait how did this come up on weed?oh well
eots
no fly list
What Your Government Knows About Cannabis And Cancer — And Isn’t Telling You
Paul Armentano /Huffington Post | June 25, 2008
Senator Ted Kennedy is putting forward a brave face following his recent surgery but the sad reality remains. Even with successful surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy treatment, gliomas — a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually — tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.
But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?
Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain.
In 2007, I reviewed over 150 published preclinical and clinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of marijuana and several of its active compounds, known as cannabinoids. I summarized these numerous studies in a book, now in its third edition, entitled Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.
Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.
In fact, the first experiment documenting pot’s potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s primary psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”
Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar — though secret — preclinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.
However, rather than publicize their findings, the U.S. government shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.
In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to authorize a single additional study examining the drug’s potential anti-cancer properties. (Federal permission is necessary in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because of its illegal status as a schedule I controlled substance.)
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Paul Armentano /Huffington Post | June 25, 2008
Senator Ted Kennedy is putting forward a brave face following his recent surgery but the sad reality remains. Even with successful surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy treatment, gliomas — a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually — tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.
But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?
Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain.
In 2007, I reviewed over 150 published preclinical and clinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of marijuana and several of its active compounds, known as cannabinoids. I summarized these numerous studies in a book, now in its third edition, entitled Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.
Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.
In fact, the first experiment documenting pot’s potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s primary psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”
Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar — though secret — preclinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.
However, rather than publicize their findings, the U.S. government shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.
In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to authorize a single additional study examining the drug’s potential anti-cancer properties. (Federal permission is necessary in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because of its illegal status as a schedule I controlled substance.)
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Gunny
Gold Member
No sunshine, nature isn't going to be happy until we force ourselves to live on less of it.
Allie is partially correct. There are leftwing organizations out there that are absolutely ridiculous in their demands and have NO qualms about cutting our throats to save a freaking fish or bird.
The fact is, we impact Earth's natural environment. We cannot exist in a modern, mechanized and industrialized society without doing so. There's a far cry from making as little adverse impact on nature as possible and some of the stupid rules the left has forced on us.
As far as fossil fuels are concerned, I think both sides of the equation -- Republican and Democrat/conservative and liberal -- are stupid. One wants to poke more holes in the Earth to perpetuate our current lifestyle and push tomorrow off beyond their retirement dates while the other side makes this pious "less consumption" speech with no regard to the fact they've cut the bottom tier our economy's collective throats.
Had we started drilling for oil when this first became an issue the second time in the late 70s, and every time between then and now the issue of drilling has come up we'd be online and pumping oil NOW and there would be no "it'll take X number of years for this to happen" lameass argument.
Likewise, had we put a concerted effort into a viable alternative fuel back in the 70s, we would at the least be a LOT further down the road closer to one. We put a man on the moon in under 10 years, but we can't come up with an alternative source of fuel? I have a problem with that.
When we start holding our elected officials accountable for their actions and not just the other side of the political aisle's officials accountable, we might actually get some results.
I won't hold my breath.
Gunny opines:
Spot on.
In the ultra green circles I used to run with, most of the leadership are of the trustfarian class. You know what that class is, right? They're the hippi with magic mailboxes which replenish their bank accounts so that they can afford berkenstocks, Prises, and solar panels for their gentlemen farms?
they're typically the people in charge of these quisling green organizations which sell out both the environment and the people at the same time.
Anyway, they consistently showed me that they didn't care a whit about the negative inpact on the working classes when they pushed their green agenda.
As long as they had their parks that were forever wild, parks that they have time and money to enjoy, they really just don't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone else.
They are, in a diametically opposed way, no less selfish than the outcome indifferent industrialists that they claim to be protecting us from.
This "screw the little people" attitude is the same one that brought us free trade, too incidently.
Its' based on the arrogant assumption that the little people deserve no consideration because they're too little to matter.
BOTH the far RIGHT and the far LEFT exibit this callous indifference, folks.
Neither of them are working for your benefit.
Ironically they BOTH get money from the same sources, too.
As far as fossil fuels are concerned, I think both sides of the equation -- Republican and Democrat/conservative and liberal -- are stupid. One wants to poke more holes in the Earth to perpetuate our current lifestyle and push tomorrow off beyond their retirement dates while the other side makes this pious "less consumption" speech with no regard to the fact they've cut the bottom tier our economy's collective throats.
Spot on.
In the ultra green circles I used to run with, most of the leadership are of the trustfarian class. You know what that class is, right? They're the hippi with magic mailboxes which replenish their bank accounts so that they can afford berkenstocks, Prises, and solar panels for their gentlemen farms?
they're typically the people in charge of these quisling green organizations which sell out both the environment and the people at the same time.
Anyway, they consistently showed me that they didn't care a whit about the negative inpact on the working classes when they pushed their green agenda.
As long as they had their parks that were forever wild, parks that they have time and money to enjoy, they really just don't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone else.
They are, in a diametically opposed way, no less selfish than the outcome indifferent industrialists that they claim to be protecting us from.
This "screw the little people" attitude is the same one that brought us free trade, too incidently.
Its' based on the arrogant assumption that the little people deserve no consideration because they're too little to matter.
BOTH the far RIGHT and the far LEFT exibit this callous indifference, folks.
Neither of them are working for your benefit.
Ironically they BOTH get money from the same sources, too.
They should put hemp into legal limbo.
Make it neither legal nor illegal.
The last thing in the world I want is for this government to start taxing legal hemp.
It is now cheaper to smoke hemp than cigarettes because of taxation on tobacco.
If they legalized and taxxed hemp the government will gave the monopoly to the big growers.
They would do through the guise of imposing some bogus health standards and inspections and taxation schemes which so favor big corporations capable of growing huge amounts of hemp and delivering it that they'd drive out small growers, just like they still do to moonshiners, today
They're create some bogus reason to do this because otherwise every stoner on earth can grow his own, and then there's no revenues from the hemp.
Keep the government out of the hemp issue, entirely.
It's none of their damned business anyway.
Make it neither legal nor illegal.
The last thing in the world I want is for this government to start taxing legal hemp.
It is now cheaper to smoke hemp than cigarettes because of taxation on tobacco.
If they legalized and taxxed hemp the government will gave the monopoly to the big growers.
They would do through the guise of imposing some bogus health standards and inspections and taxation schemes which so favor big corporations capable of growing huge amounts of hemp and delivering it that they'd drive out small growers, just like they still do to moonshiners, today
They're create some bogus reason to do this because otherwise every stoner on earth can grow his own, and then there's no revenues from the hemp.
Keep the government out of the hemp issue, entirely.
It's none of their damned business anyway.
no no no
i beg to differ good sir, nature won't be happy untill we harvest it through reuseable ways. Things such as wind power, river dams, UV rays, and underwater currents will one day take over the worlds power supply, the reason they have yet to get big is because so little of the energy there is being harvested. UV energy panels for example only harness around 40% of the suns rays. The future of humanity will be aaking care of the enviroment while it takes care of us. Things like fossol fuels are horrible forms of one time energy release. wait how did this come up on weed?oh well
Now that I agree with. The "it" i was referring to as needed to be used less of was oil.
I'm not sure how it came up. Something like "you hippies, bla bla bla, you libs are destroying the country bla bla bla, you are gonna make oil illegal, bla bla bla."
It really isn't a current even except for the few hangers-ons to a cause that died out with Jimmy Carter. IIRC, that was BIG selling point to voting for him -- he was going to legalize pot.
It really isn't a political debate either. It usually boils down to morals and who wants to force theirs on others.
As I said, read the other threads. You aren't making any new points here. Not that I'm saying they aren't worthy of discussion, just that people here either already agree with you, or don't.
I agree that marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol and marijuana smoke is only slightly more poisonous than tobacco smoke and for most people is used more sparingly. However, marijuana can impair judgment and reflexes while smoking cigarettes generally does not and therein, for social reasons, is the important difference.
Since we have a new thread, I will state again that the best argument for keeping marijuana illegal, at least on the open market, is to make it more difficult for kids to get and because marijuana lingers in the system for so long, there is currently no way to conclusively field test for sobriety. I honestly do not wish to share the roads with any more folks stoned out of their senses than I already do.
I agree that marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol and marijuana smoke is only slightly more poisonous than tobacco smoke and for most people is used more sparingly. However, marijuana can impair judgment and reflexes while smoking cigarettes generally does not and therein, for social reasons, is the important difference.
Since we have a new thread, I will state again that the best argument for keeping marijuana illegal, at least on the open market, is to make it more difficult for kids to get and because marijuana lingers in the system for so long, there is currently no way to conclusively field test for sobriety. I honestly do not wish to share the roads with any more folks stoned out of their senses than I already do.
If someone is driving while impaired that is the crime. You don't put people in jail for victimless crimes, which isn't a crime and all, because you are afraid of what they might do. That perspective cuts right to the heart of tyranny.
If someone is driving while impaired that is the crime. You don't put people in jail for victimless crimes, which isn't a crime and all, because you are afraid of what they might do. That perspective cuts right to the heart of tyranny.
My point was, however, that there is no way to field test pot to determine if the driver is driving impaired. There are some who can't walk the chalk line stone sober but they can blow that 1.0 or whatever into a breathalizer or prove they are sober in the same way. There is no equivalent test for marijuana because the stuff stays in your system long after the immediate physical effects have passed. So it's purely a practical matter in the interest of public safety.
I suppose if legalization included the requirement that nobody using pot would ever drive or work around machinery or in any industry in which safe practices and good judgment could affect other people, there would be no reason to keep pot illegal.
I agree that marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol and marijuana smoke is only slightly more poisonous than tobacco smoke and for most people is used more sparingly. However, marijuana can impair judgment and reflexes while smoking cigarettes generally does not and therein, for social reasons, is the important difference.
Since we have a new thread, I will state again that the best argument for keeping marijuana illegal, at least on the open market, is to make it more difficult for kids to get and because marijuana lingers in the system for so long, there is currently no way to conclusively field test for sobriety. I honestly do not wish to share the roads with any more folks stoned out of their senses than I already do.
Rather putting the cart before the horse aren't you?
there is currently no way to conclusively field test for sobriety.
Maybe that's because hemp doesn't effect one ability to drive like alcohol does?
Just consider, if one can't tell by poor driving or field tests that someone is stoned, perhaps that indicates that being stoned isn't really the danger you're assuming it must be?
Point in fact taking a cold pill or many legal drugs which people take every day for vaious long term conditions effects one's ability to drive far more than hemp does.
They keep doing studies of stoners in Europe and they keep finding that while theirreaction times are very modestly effected, theior record of driving charges is below the average.
Why?
Because hemp typically decreases aggression and agression is generally the at the root cause of most people truly poor driving.
Ironic isn't it?
Ravi
Diamond Member
Maybe that's because hemp doesn't effect one ability to drive like alcohol does?
I don't believe that. I remember once being fascinated with looking into the rear view mirror while driving stoned with a car full of friends. Almost rear ended a motorcycle. And those times of taking stupid risks because of just feeling invincible.
It definitely affects your driving ability, maybe not in quite the same way...
If you are involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident and you had smoked marijuana a week ago it is still in your blood stream. When the blood test results come in we all know it will be admissible in court and would have to influence a judge or jury. Unlike alcohol where there is a known level in which you are deemed to be intoxicated there is not such in marijuana therefore it might be possible for you to be charged with vehicular homicide or DWI if there is no death.
If you smoke marijuana you very well might be throwing money away in purchasing accidental death insurance to provide for your family in case of death. An example would be if you were killed in an automobile accident and your blood test, which will be taken, showed any marijuana. It would give the insurance company an out or at least an opportunity to negotiate on a lesser amount for your family.
If you smoke marijuana you very well might be throwing money away in purchasing accidental death insurance to provide for your family in case of death. An example would be if you were killed in an automobile accident and your blood test, which will be taken, showed any marijuana. It would give the insurance company an out or at least an opportunity to negotiate on a lesser amount for your family.
Rather putting the cart before the horse aren't you?
Maybe that's because hemp doesn't effect one ability to drive like alcohol does?
Just consider, if one can't tell by poor driving or field tests that someone is stoned, perhaps that indicates that being stoned isn't really the danger you're assuming it must be?
Point in fact taking a cold pill or many legal drugs which people take every day for vaious long term conditions effects one's ability to drive far more than hemp does.
They keep doing studies of stoners in Europe and they keep finding that while theirreaction times are very modestly effected, theior record of driving charges is below the average.
Why?
Because hemp typically decreases aggression and agression is generally the at the root cause of most people truly poor driving.
Ironic isn't it?
At least three fatal car crashes and one fatal train crash have been linked to pot being a component in New Mexico in recent years. You may think being stoned on pot is less dangerous than being drunk with alcohol, but I will need more convincing on that score than what you have provided here.
I think you are drawing a very strained conclusion suggesting that the reason pot cannot be effectively field tested (to get a stoned driver off the road) is because the driver won't be as impaired as a drunk driver. You'll have to provide some better support for that opinion too before it will be convincing to me. I prefer not to share the road with either drunk or stoned drivers if that is okay with you.
My point was, however, that there is no way to field test pot to determine if the driver is driving impaired. There are some who can't walk the chalk line stone sober but they can blow that 1.0 or whatever into a breathalizer or prove they are sober in the same way. There is no equivalent test for marijuana because the stuff stays in your system long after the immediate physical effects have passed. So it's purely a practical matter in the interest of public safety.
I suppose if legalization included the requirement that nobody using pot would ever drive or work around machinery or in any industry in which safe practices and good judgment could affect other people, there would be no reason to keep pot illegal.
I'm sorry, but that is group think. Society is not here to cater to stupid people. If someone is driving impaired and they do something wrong (cross lines or whatever) then that is a stopable offense. If someone is driving erratically, they have driving to endanger laws. Because some people may be irresponsible does not give the government the right to prevent people from doing something that does not infringe on the liberty of others. Driving while impaired on anything is a crime. Either stop persecuting the liberty of drug users or shut down all the bars and package stores. People have a right to destroy themselves if they wish, but only themselves.
I prefer not to share the road with either drunk or stoned drivers if that is okay with you.
But why is one enforced by total prohibition and criminalization and the other is not?
Zeddicus
Member
- Jun 23, 2008
- 43
- 2
- 6
But why is one enforced by total prohibition and criminalization and the other is not?
during the drug addicted 20s and 30s the goverment needed to clean up the streets, or at least appear to be cleaning up. so banned alcohal and marajuna cought on. but your older generation said marajuna was dirty and that only intoxicant to be taken by the civilized nations was alcohol. thus with no sientific data it was ilegalized. ain't that 'bout a bitch
Legalizing it will not do anything. There are many LEGAL things you can buy that are still on the black-market. There will still be powerful druglords killing innocent people over drugs. And not to mention fighting one another over the rights to produce. You can buy a gun, but they still find their way onto the black-market for people to purchase illegallly.
But why is one enforced by total prohibition and criminalization and the other is not?
Again--and I'll type really slowly here--
1) You CAN field test for sobriety re alcohol.
2) You CANNOT field test for sobriety re pot.
Therefore, there is no reasonable way to get drivers impaired by pot off the road before they hurt, maim, or kill somebody.
And for the record, driving while under the influence or driving while intoxicated is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution in all 50 states.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 729
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 998
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 418
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 311
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 146
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-