Two
Me
Do you know WHY it's illegal? What I read is that the drug manufacturers were beginning to realize the medicinal potential. A plant, which people can grow at home, which treats a multitude of ailments. How much money do the drug companies stand to lose from that?
JTM
Less than zero dollars. Plants that everyone can grow at home to cure various aliments are the source of most drugs, including current painkillers.
That's the phrase I was referencing in the above statement. Beta Carotene is a health supplement sold in pill form and found in carrots. Please note, people continue to eat carrots.
(Doing Therapy)
Then why did you start a thread specifically for discussing the topic of medical marijuana use?
Is that what this thread is about? Funny--even looking back at the first post, I thought this thread was about my desire that you not continue proselytizing its use here, and your claim that using it was something Christians should support.
I bet it was all legal hassles, right?
No, it wasn't. It was an inability to maintain a normal life, an inability to hold a regular job and attend regularly. The legal stuff was just secondary complications.
Consider that it was pharmaceutical companies and oil manufacturers that lobbied to make it illegal. That's right. It's illegal BECAUSE it's so useful. How much money do they stand to lose?
Actually, if it were legal, the pharmaceutical companies would be marketing it, at lower prices with high profit margins, so it would be the illegal growers and importers that would lose money. But that's a secondary consideration. You combine your paranoia with conspiracy theory in that statement: if major corporations of a particular type are against something, it must be because they would make money if it were legal. That's not always the case.
I have an example. Decades ago there were congressional hearings, pushed by fans of Ralph Nader. Nader's people testified to the effect that children died horribly every year because their clothes, and particularly their night clothes, caught fire in fires. The had photos. They had demonstrations.
The chemical companies were on the list of those slated to testify at those hearings. It was presumed that those companies would oppose any law requiring that children's nightclothes be made fire retardant. It was presumed that they would be opposed because it would cost money for them to do this. However, once the testimony concerning the harm done by flammable nightclothes was presented, the congressmen ended the hearings and drafted and passed legislation requiring all nightclothes for children to be flame retardant.
Thereafter, all such clothing was treated with such chemicals as were available. The chemical companies did not want to do this. These chemicals are suspected carcinogens which were never tested or approved for prolonged direct contact with human skin; workers handled them with protective gear. Also, although they did impede clothing from burning, in doing so they when heated to much lower temperatures began emitting poisonous fumes that would kill a wearer long before the clothing would have caught fire.
So now chemical companies make millions of dollars selling these poisons to garment manufacturers who are required by law to put them in all children's sleepwear, and consumers pay more for the sleepwear because of the cost of these chemicals. And the chemical companies are blamed because it's not possible to treat garments with flame-retardant chemicals which do not have these effects, and because they make money on that which they opposed.
So it's not always the case that corporations are against things because they'll lose money. They sometimes oppose things because they are the experts who see the problems the rest of us don't know.
I mean, seriously, anyone who really knows about drugs probably got a job working in the field. The best and the brightest either work for the pharmaceutical companies or teach in the pharmaceutical colleges which are supported in part by grants from the pharmaceutical companies. You can argue that all their research is tainted by the fact that the companies have a profit motive, but that's putting a lot of blame on a lot of people who got into a field so that they could make the world a bit better by improving our medicines.
And again, the Mayo Clinic was cited. They are not a pharmaceutical company, and if there were benefits to a product which outweighed the risks, they would be pushing for clinical trials. They are rather pushing against legalization.
Please note, people continue to eat carrots.
Ah, but they don't really do so to get beta carotene. They do so because carrots are food. There was one guy in the 80's who was trying to replace all his food with pills. He was planning a long multi-day hike through mountain wilderness with all his nutritional requirements in pill form. I never heard what became of him.
--M. J. Young
So it's not always the case that corporations are against things because they'll lose money. They sometimes oppose things because they are the experts who see the problems the rest of us don't know.
No, but it is very often the case that money is a factor in making such decisions. Anyone who says otherwise must be pretty naive. I'm just telling statistics I've heard.
Annual deaths directly attributed to Marijuana use: 0.
Are you sure you're not the one reading propaganda?
(Doing Therapy)
I DEFINITELY disagree with John 4 that no one likes the taste of alcohol. I just made some hard apple cider from a recipe in that wine making book. MJ, if you didn't like the taste, I'd honestly be surprised.
(Doing Therapy)
Annual deaths directly attributed to Marijuana use: 0.
Well, that's a funny statistic, and you'll find the same number of deaths attributed to most prescription medicines. Sure, there are a few really serious ones for severe problems in which the medication is the direct cause of someone's death, but in the main that is not what happens.
Now, there are deaths attributed directly to alcohol use, but the number is surprisingly low. That's because the phrase "directly attributed to" is so very limited in application. There are three ways you can die as a "direct" result of a drug:
- Overdose, which means alcohol poisoning in this case;
- Withdrawal, which in this case means delirium tremens, violent fits and seizures leading to death;
- Adverse or allergic reaction, which rarely happens in the case of alcohol because it is so simple a drug.
And this does not cover those for whom the "direct" cause of death is massive trauma from automotive accident, whether they or someone else had been driving or drinking.
There is a similar problem with cigarettes, behind which the tobacco companies hid for decades. People don't usually die of cigarette smoking. They die of heart failure, lung cancer, throat cancer, stroke, or any of several other conditions for which cigarette smoking is a major contributing factor, but the amount of smoke you inhale with each cigarette will not kill you immediately. (On this, though, recent research has shown that real mutagenic damage to DNA is done within thirty seconds of inhaling cigarette smoke, so it is already destroying you even though you don't know it.)
For this reason, we do not know how many deaths are attributable to marijuana. If someone is killed in an accident due to the effects of the drug, it is not "directly attributed to" marijuana because it is "directly attributed to" the accident. If (as seems likely) the smoke causes cancer, you die of the cancer--or the heart disease or stroke or whatever other long-term impact it has.
So the fact that no deaths are "directly attributed to" marijuana tells us only that the drug has not been found directly to cause violent symptoms, and any deaths caused by it are indirect, through organ failure and other breakdown.
And that's something I trust the Mayo Clinic to know.
Are you sure you're not the one reading propaganda?
Certainly it's possible that the Mayo Clinic, respected for its efforts to research and apply all possible avenues of better medicine, has some secret reason for excluding a perfectly safe and effective medical treatment from those efforts. It seems more likely to me, though, that people with no medical training who want to grow, use, and sell marijuana for recreational use are less trustworthy than the people who have no stake in the matter at all and are among the most respected physicians and medical researchers in the world.
So I'm not positive that I'm not the one reading propaganda, but it does seem to me as if between a neutral party with expertise in the field and a biased party with limited education in medical research, the neutral experts ought to be given more respect.
--M. J. Young
MJ, it's a catch 22 from hell. It's illegal to grow, so researchers can't determine if it's safe or effective. If they could determine that it was safe and effective, it wouldn't be illegal, since it is illegal, they can't determine if it's safe and effective. Since it was the drug manufacturers who lobbied to make it illegal, and the Mayo Clinic probably takes bribes, er, excuse me, charitable donations from the drug manufacturers, that doesn't surprise me at all.
People have been smoking and using hemp for centuries. How long has the Mayo Clinic been around? Centuries of anecdotal evidence shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I DO know that California has plenty of doctors who prescribe marijuana for a myriad of ailments. Whether those experts are with the Mayo clinic is not something I know. So, there IS expert evidence, just apparently not the Mayo Clinic.
Besides, why are you taking the word of a clinic named after a sandwich topping? (Joke)
(Doing Therapy)
It's illegal to grow, so researchers can't determine if it's safe or effective.
Substances which are "illegal" in the country generally are still available for study in facilities licensed to handle them.
Research continues on cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine, for example. I'm sure someone is doing research into THC and other ingredients in marijuana.
As far as the law in California, they also think that homosexual is a normal human state, so I wouldn't give much attention to anything they think--although if you think you would fit in better, you can go there.
--M. J. Young
As far as the law in California, they also think that homosexual is a normal human state, so I wouldn't give much attention to anything they think--although if you think you would fit in better, you can go there.
Do you know why California got the homosexuals and Utah got the Mormons? California had first pick!!!!!
(And it was a Mormon missionary who told me that joke)
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I'm sure someone is doing research into THC and other ingredients in marijuana.
Yeah, I'm one of them. :)
(Doing Therapy)
Ya know MJ, you were talking about the mayonnaise clinic and all of their findings. I would be skeptical of that. Something that I read was that when the EPA did the study of second-hand cigarette smoke, they found that being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke made it 25% more likely to develop heart disease and lung cancer. Do you know where that statistic came from? How it worked out was that 10 out of a million people in non-smoking households would develop cancer and heart disease, and 12.5 out of a million in smoking households would develop cancer and heart disease. That's 25% more likely, but hardly statistically significant.
The mayonnaise clinic probably uses similarly doctored statistics.
John, I'm sure that your post would be a lot more credible if you didn't think that the Mayo clinic had something to do with mayonnaise. Of course, they say that you can tell you're an intellectual if you can hear the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger, and it's admittedly not such a stretch.
So what you're telling me is that you don't consider a twenty-five percent difference statistically significant. I'm not in the field, but I think that's quite a difference, particularly considering the low numbers we're seeing otherwise.
And those are not the only concerns. Children in smoking homes are more likely to get asthma and other respiratory problems, miss more days of school due to colds and respiratory infections, have lower average weights and heights, and are generally less healthy than children in non-smoking homes.
If you're trying to demonstrate that second hand smoke has no serious effects, you've got an uphill battle.
--M. J. Young
If you're trying to demonstrate that second hand smoke has no serious effects, you've got an uphill battle.
Actually it's Penn and Teller. They do a TV show called Bull$&%@ where they debunk stuff like that. They're the ones making the claim, I was just repeating what I saw.
The point was that 25% sounds like a huge number, but 2.5 out of a million isn't really as significant as that makes it sound.
Somehow unimpressed by your reference. You might benefit from English 101: Composition. they can teach you how to build your credibility and sustain an argument much better than that.
And where did I say that secondhand smoke was safe? I said that the 25% referenced represented only 2.5 out of a million people. If it went from 10 out of a million to 25,000 out of a million, THAT would be significant. Simple variants you would see in any such random polling could have accounted for a 2.5 out of a million increase. It doesn't prove conclusively that the secondhand smoke was responsible. That's all I'm saying.
If you want to know the truth, I would be all for making tobacco illegal, IF they legalized a certain other plant.....
(Doing Therapy)
Well let's start with the fact that you're once again continually disregarding MJ's wishes as stated by:
And I'm going once more politely to ask you not to promote such use on this forum.
In other words stop, this is another one of those things that's just getting old, and new to this one it's something that mars the forum.
As to your abuse of statistics there, you seem to be using the term "statistically significant" and "variant" in ways that simply aren't how statisticians define the words.
Statistically significant is worthless without stating the threshold of significance. 98% threshold is common enough, which means there is a 98% chance that the hypothetical statement is true. In this case the null hypothesis is that smoking increases chance of cancer by 25%.
Now in order to determine this we have a bit of work to do. I guess we could find the variance, but it's really just a stepping stone to the std deviation, so lets just skip right ahead to that.
std.dev=sqrt((sum(X-u))/(n-1))
Where X is the resultant values.
u is me not being able to type the 12th level in the greek alphabet on this forum and references the mean.
n is the population sample, and 1 is subtracted from it because we are not using the entire population.
n>40 and as such a std bell shaped curve may be assumed.
The sum(x-u) comes out to 2.5, the total difference between the sample and the expected.
std.dev=sqrt(2.5/999999)
=sqrt(2.500025e-6)
=.001581
So back to our null hypothesis.
Our hypothesis is that smoking increases the chance of cancer, so the easiest way to prove this is disproving that smoking and chance of cancer are not correlated.
For that the be true the std.dev of .001581 has to compensate for 2.5 people
2.5/.001581=316.3 std deviations
So... I don't know std deviations out that far so let me check.
My table doesn't go anywhere near that high. 5 std deviations will bring you to 99.9999% certainty. That's already past the number of significant figures we had in this equation, and as such the answer is 100%, most likely to be reported as 99.9999%, confidence in the statement that smoking increases the chance of cancer.
In other words stop, this is another one of those things that's just getting old, and new to this one it's something that mars the forum.
And where did I promote anything on the forum? That "certain other plant" I mentioned could have been anything at all.
I don't care how much math you shove in my face. 2.5 out of a million is NOT a significant increase. That's what? A 0.000,002,5% chance. <sarc>WOW, secondhand smoke is a real killer..... </sarc>
10 out of a million people in non-smoking households would develop cancer and heart disease, and 12.5 out of a million in smoking households would develop cancer and heart disease.
John, it suddenly occurs to me that you must have gotten the numbers wrong.
What you're telling me is that the two largest killers--cancer and heart disease--together affect only about one in one hundred thousand people. We know that they do not kill everyone they affect, but even if they did that number is incredibly small--it means we have to figure out the rest manage to die without the same cause of death affecting more than one in one hundred thousand people.
You've got your numbers wrong somewhere, John.
And if it's a difference between 10 and 12.5 per thousand, that's meaningful. And if its a difference between 10% and 12.5%, that's significant.
--M. J. Young
I'll have to rent that DVD again and check. Maybe Penn and Teller were talking trash.
(Doing Therapy)
Mike and MJ basically summarized WHY I am unimpressed with your reference without me having to do the work. Hooray for smart friends on teh inturwebs! (deliberately unintelligent sounding comment, geek culture reference for those unaware (maybe John? dunno if he is into OTHER geeky stuff besides MV-Are you, John?))
(maybe John? dunno if he is into OTHER geeky stuff besides MV-Are you, John?))
Not really, no. I missed the reference, and was momentarily considering pointing out that you just made a really stupid mistake. So, thank you for explaining it.
(Doing Therapy)
I have a hard time figuring out what stuff is "geeky" anymore. After all, I would have thought that Penn & Teller were really geek stuff. Science fiction is classically geek, but it's become so mainstream you can't really tell who the geeks are when you're in the theatre. Fantasy, too, but Harry Potter seems to have broken the mold significantly. And computers were always classic geek, as were most miniaturized electronic devices. Comic books might still be geek, but movies made from comic books aren't necessarily so.
So I don't know how anyone would know whether he was into geek stuff. Stamp collecting? That's probably still geek, but not even my father collects stamps anymore.
--M. J. Young
As far as what's geeky, it kind of goes along with what used to mean you were rich. I'm reminded of Short Circuit 2.
Ben: "It is unfortunate that we are not carrying a telephone around with us."
Fred: "Well I left mine in the Mercedes, ya know....."
And that was just a scant 23 years ago. A cell phone used to mean you were rich. Now you can get them for free.
And since we're on the topic of the way things change, typing skills used to mean you were a secretary. Now it just means you're a teenager with a computer. Thirty years ago, a man with typing skills was probably largely unheard of. I bet some of the guys on this board could rival a skilled secretary for typing now.
I knew a guy with a phone back in the late 80's, and he was not and is not rich--he was just a tech guy, into audio and photography and video, and a portable phone fit his style. He carried it in a bag. Of course, it had to be satellite back then--no microwave towers for cellular service. But you're right about the rich. The only other person I heard of who had one was Banacek, and he kept it in the limo.
And I had typing skills in the early seventies. You needed them to get through college, but I actually got them in high school. I admit that they improved immensely when I was in law school. The school library had PCs, and you could get a Word Perfect disk at the desk so you could write papers on them.
--M. J. Young
My handwriting has been tested as that of a first grader. Indeed, I have old school papers from back then, and the handwriting isn't much improved. For that reason, I had to teach myself how to type when I was 11 or 12. I just sat down with a word-processor typing the alphabet over and over until I got the hang of it.
(Doing Therapy)
mistake
(Deleted Doing Therapy)
Two
Mistake
(Deleted Doing Therapy)
The last doctor-prescribed anti-psychotic medication I was on increased my paranoia tenfold, and I didn't even realize it until I stopped taking the thing. Two things. First, how many other people are there out there with increased paranoia who don't realize it? That could get dangerous. Secondly, since I was unaware of my own mental illness, technically that means the medication was making me insane!!!!!! And I say again, this was prescribed by a doctor!!!!!!!!
I'll stick with my all-natural cure, thanks.
EDIT And ya know what? Suddenly sentience makes so much more sense. Unaware of my own mental illness. That's a form of consciousness. I understood it. Terminators aren't sentient. I didn't understand the definition until I just reread that. Didn't want to open another thread. I don't think I understood the definition of "Consciousness" until just now. They're self-aware and intelligent, but they lack consciousness. At least in the movies. I didn't understand that until just now.
(Doing Therapy)
See? Psychotic revelations can be a good thing!!!!!!
MJ, here's the problem that I have with your notion that marijuana "Dulls" the thought process. Every single post you see of mine labeled (Doing Therapy) means that, by your definition, my mind is "Dulled". I'm completely coherent, intelligent and imaginative. Perhaps a little disjointed, but far from the drooling imbecile you're making me out to be. How can you even attempt to argue that my mind is "dulled" when you're reading a (Doing Therapy) post? If anything, I'd say I'm much sharper.
John, I'm afraid that you cannot effectively evaluate the clarity of your own writing.
--M. J. Young
So are you saying that my writing is unclear, or are you simply saying I cannot effectively evaluate it? There's a big difference ya know.
From where I'm sitting, the (Doing Therapy) posts are typically much better.
I don't see it, but if anyone else is still wasting time reading this thread I'll let them give their opinions.
--M. J. Young
How can you speak out against something you've never tried? You're (at best) speaking in ignorance.
Two
Regarding speaking out against something you've never tried, I'm suddenly recalling a political cartoon I once saw. It was a gay man talking to a Hell's Angels biker.
Gay Man: "How do you know you wouldn't like gay sex? Did you ever try it?"
Hell's Angels Biker: "You ever been kicked in the nuts by a guy wearing steel-toed motorcycle boots?"
Gay Man: "No"
Hell's Angels Biker: "How do you know you wouldn't like it?"
(Doing Therapy)
http://c212747.r47.cf1.rackcdn.com/MedicalMarijuanaLrg.jpg
I implore you to check the facts about medical marijuana before you go spouting off about how "dangerous" it is. Statistically, it's even safer than some FDA approved drugs. There's a boatload of things on this list that you have that it's been used to treat.