chickenwings

right....

"Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is processed by the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that neurons in the information processing system of the hippocampus and the activity of the nerve fibers in this region are suppressed by THC. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate via this mechanism.

Recent research findings also indicate that long-term use of marijuana produces changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse."

do yourself a favor and visit fda.gov. read up on thc toxicology. like i said, you aint researched the subject much. its ok though bruh. most ppl with lots to say about it havent. honestly the only reason i have is cuz i had to write a term paper about it.

Mr Dillinger

Thats what I found...

And @ bold...hmmm...not fair that their not allowing us to have a substance that could possibly be stopping a lot more people from getting these cancers...andfor what reasons...???

cause the government sure as hell doesn't give a shit about the medical factors seeing as how cigarettes are still legal...

__________________


All it takes is one bad day to drive an average, modest man irretrievably insane.

Witty Qwan

this thread still going on....

__________________
[02:34PM] Lyrikcha FUCK THIS FAGGOT CHAMBERS NIGGA...IM A CUT HIS HEAD OFF AND PUT IT ON A STICK FOR MY NIGGA TIGER CAN DEFROST THE GAT AND SMOKE U

chickenwings

weed does NOT stop or prevent cancer. it slows down the growth of cancer cells in SOME situations. one thing i will say though is that there are legal substances (like alcohol) that can do a lot more damage a lot quicker. then again alcohol WAS illegal at one point and the only reason it isnt still that way is cuz the government had no control so they figured they would just legalize it again and get money from it through taxing sales.

₪RapSody₪

did you really just cite the FDA as a more reputable source than one of the premier medical journals in the world?

considering the government obviously has a vested interest in keeping cannabis illegal and they have a history of lying about the dangers of cannabis (see harry anslinger), i don't consider the FDA to be the greatest source of information on cannabis.. considering they still officially state that cannabis has no medical value when virtually all the evidence shows that it does which you have even admitted yourself.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

if you had done your homework you would know that the FDA uses a wide range of source material aside of their own studies and investigations. and of the stuff they do themselves, they contract out a lot of the time to the same people who submit material to those same journals. this is exactly what i mean when i say people should actually research a subject before they try to speak on it. there isnt anything ive said that should have to be pointed out because people who know what theyre talking about cuz they did the homework, already know this stuff.

some people think the sun revolves around the earth. some people think the earth revolves around the sun. the only difference is science has proven one of those two ideas. just like science has proven smoking weed affects several organs and systems in the body in a negative/damaging way. there is no debate on whether its bad or not. the debate is _how_ bad.

chickenwings

ps. you claim the government has a vested interest in keeping weed illegal. ok, whats the vested interest? ill go ahead and prove the opposite of what you claim... by legalizing it they are able to create regulations and take nearly total control of the market and more importantly the value. not only will this create multiple revenue streams, it will also increase the number of people requiring treatment for the damage caused by the usage of the drug. which in turn the medical industry profits from by treating those people, which in turn is in the governments interest because the american political system is controlled primarily by medical lobbyists.

this is almost exactly whats happened with tobacco.

₪RapSody₪

for all that talk about research, you obviously haven't even researched the reputation of the source of your information. a very short list of the scandals the FDA has been involved in:

Approving a dangerous antibiotic even after one of the studies' scientists was imprisoned for fabricating data.

Gassing U.S. meat with poisonous carbon monoxide, simply to preserve the color a little longer

Unleashing a synthetic fat substitute on the public without studying any long term effects

Several of their employees have pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from big pharma. companies in order to gain faster approval for generic drugs.

Experimental tests conducted in developing countries on sick and vulnerable children under the guise of free and ethical treatments sanctioned by the FDA and complicit medical institutions.



my information comes from a respected medical journal, yours comes from the government which has a history of lying about this subject (once again, see harry anslinger who once claimed smoking cannabis could cause homicidal rage).

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

^^since you didnt get it the first time. pay extra attention to the part in bold.

₪RapSody₪

why would i believe an agency that is obviously corrupt and un-scientific over a respected medical journal? there's some huge jump in logic there. just because they say they use a wide range of sources automatically means whatever they say is correct despite evidence to the contrary? i'm not following.. so i guess you're right.. i don't get it because it's not logical.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

₪RapSody₪

i would also like to know how you will sidestep the fact that the FDA still officially states "cannabis has no medicinal value" because it's a completely indefensible position and shows that the FDA is nothing more than a political group.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

dont take this the wrong way homey but you aint qualified to discuss this subject. i keep sayin please go do your homework and i know 100% you havent. like i said, honestly the only reason i have is because i had to write a term paper on it. otherwise i dont give a fuck enough. i cant keep responding to nonsense so PLEASE go do some serious research and we'll have a real discussion then.

$$$ C-Money $$$

either fuckin way if either of you are right

tobacco is legal and it kills way too many people and there is absolutely no health benefit of it whatsoever

alcohol kills people and does extensive damage to the body over prolonged use and there's no health benefit whatsoever

marijuana whether proven or not shows some form of health benefit. Whether it's proven or not or even if 1% of people who use it medicinally show positive results it's still better than alcohol or tobacco which are both legal.

We should legalize it, tax it, let the dealers who are on the streets open brokerages or stores and distribute it properly and be taxed on it just as much as philip morris and anheuser busch are being taxed on there products.

That's the best way if it's legalized for it to work because if corporations take over the mrijuana trade like tobacco was done then it'll end up gettin filled with nicotine or something that'll make it more addictive than it already is.

__________________
C-Money Battle Record
W: 40 L: 12 KO: 38

₪RapSody₪

lol, you wrote a term paper? congratu-fuckin-lations.. you must be an expert then. serious research? a medical journal isn't serious research? the FDA saying "cannabis has no medicinal value" isn't serious? or it just isn't serious to you because it doesn't fit into your narrow viewpoint? all i wanna know is if you believe the FDA when they say cannabis has no medicinal value.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

i already told you to come back after youve actually researched this subject because until then you are not qualified to debate it. i dont mean this to sound bad but its obvious you dont really know what youre talking about. even the stupid shit i quoted is the third time youve failed to comprehend whats already been said. here it is AGAIN, for the THIRD TIME:

"if you had done your homework you would know that the FDA uses a wide range of source material aside of their own studies and investigations. and of the stuff they do themselves, they contract out a lot of the time to the same people who submit material to those same journals. this is exactly what i mean when i say people should actually research a subject before they try to speak on it. there isnt anything ive said that should have to be pointed out because people who know what theyre talking about cuz they did the homework, already know this stuff."

im trying to keep things civil and not roast the fuck out of you but i dont know how much longer i can because the ignorant shit you keep posting just asks to get bashed. for your own good, GO RESEARCH THIS SUBJECT so we can have an educated debate. or just stop while youre behind

₪RapSody₪

quoting yourself over and over doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like a pompous ass.

once again, all i wanna know is if you believe the FDA when they say cannabis has no medicinal value. then you can go back to thinking you've done all this great research.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

i did my homework. i wrote my term paper. i got the good grade. its painfully obvious you havent. ill keep quoting myself until you figure out that the exact same sources youre trying to use are contracted to conduct research for the same agency you are trying to bash. its laughable youre actually trying to argue this.

do your homework first next time homey. its painfully obvious youre not qualified to speak on this

₪RapSody₪

still dodging my question despite your qualifications? that's weak son. your term paper obviously has some holes in it if you're relying so heavily on sources like the FDA who are obviously biased and un-scientific. If the same sources I'm using are contracted by the FDA, why is the FDA completely unwilling to acknowledge the medical benefits of smoked cannabis that are backed up by numerous scientific studies?

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

^^one of the requirements for that paper was that we had to quote from at least 20 sources and give a balanced perspective for both sides of the argument and then a conclusion. i dunno why you make up this nonsense about how i relied "so heavily on sources like the FDA".

if you actually bothered to look into you would know the FDA is currently running several studies looking into using the drug as a form of treatment for a number of different things. you keep ignoring simple facts either cuz you havent taken the time to actually do any homework. or cuz you have a problem admitting youre wrong. either way your question is silly because its not based on truth. its just some shit you _think_ and nothing more. i keep asking you to do some solid research and you refuse to do it. why? i would hope you would _want_ be to _educated_ on a subject youre trying to debate. i guess not

₪RapSody₪

"FDA, as the federal agency responsible for reviewing the safety and efficacy of drugs, DEA as the federal agency charged with enforcing the CSA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as the federal coordinator of drug control policy, do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes."

- directly from an FDA statement

"The federal government has not only refused to fund medical marijuana research, it has put in place a set of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that have kept the flow of even privately funded medical marijuana studies to a trickle. So with one hand, our government tells us 'there's no data,' while with the other hand it works to ensure there will never be enough data."

- Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente

"The Food and Drug Administration is contradicting itself. It recently reiterated its position that cannabis has no medical utility, but it also approved advanced clinical trials for a marijuana-derived drug called Sativex, a liquid preparation of two of the most therapeutically useful compounds of cannabis. This is the same agency that in 1985 approved Marinol, another oral cannabis-derived medicine....

But there is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk. Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana.....

Cannabis will one day be seen as a wonder drug, as was penicillin in the 1940s. Like penicillin, herbal marijuana is remarkably nontoxic, has a wide range of therapeutic applications and would be quite inexpensive if it were legal."

- Lester Grinspoon, MD

"We are troubled by the FDA's April 20th press release... The timing and the lack of substantial information included in this release lead us to conclude that this was a politically motivated statement rather than one based on scientific evidence and fact.

Despite the fact that you are responding to a scientific question, your press release failed to provide any scientific expertise. We call on you to show us the purported scientific evidence for the basis of this response...."

- bipartisan letter to the FDA from 24 members of Congress

"Marijuana is medically useful, whether politicians like it or not...

The [FDA] statement is curious in a number of ways. For one thing, it overlooks a report made in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academy of Sciences, which came to a different conclusion. John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska who co-chaired the committee that drew up the report, found some sound scientific information that supports the medical use of marijuana for certain patients for short periods—even for smoked marijuana.... "

- The Economist Newspaper

The drugs you are referring to are synthetic substitutes for cannabis. The FDA refuses to allow the proper research for medical marijuana to be conducted for political reasons.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

now youre getting the picture. and after at least several more hours of reading maybe youll be ready for a solid debate about this. a little tip though. try studying research thats recently and not a few or more years old. then youll start seeing things like:

"This article, by Pete Guither, provides a bit more information on the hypocrisy of the US government claiming no medicinal value of marijuana, yet providing FDA-approved marijuana to people, such as Irv Rosenfeld."

"FDA Oks Synthetic Marijuana Drug for Chemo Patients. Synthetic THC acts on the brain like the THC in smoked marijuana, but eliminates having to inhale the otherwise harmful smoke contained in the illegal drug, Valeant said.

Cesamet is a Schedule II drug, meaning it has a high potential for abuse. The 1-milligram tablets are meant to be taken twice daily before cancer patients undergo chemotherapy and up to 48 hours following treatment. Side effects include euphoria, drowsiness, vertigo and dry mouth."

bla bla bla

there is no debate whether smoking marijuana is harmful. it is 100% of the time. how much damage is caused depends on the body chemistry of the person smoking it. the fact that is helps slow certain types of cancer under certain conditions do not eliminate the fact that the users vital organs and other tissues are damaged with each use.

bottom line weed is not some miracle drug you can smoke that has all good and no bad affects. anyone that thinks you can smoke weed (or smoke ANYTHING for that matter) without negative side-affects is living on another planet. proven factual science doesnt lie. but people do

₪RapSody₪

I'm not trying to debate you, to quote Barney Frank that would be like having a conversation with a dining room table. You use quotes that talk about the hypocrisy of the FDA while maintaining that they are a solid source of information? interesting. The real question should be, if smoked marijuana has no medical benefit, why are they trying to make it into a drug synthetically? Better get your thinking cap on for that one.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

chickenwings

^^uhh just look at my previous post for the answer.

"FDA Oks Synthetic Marijuana Drug for Chemo Patients. Synthetic THC acts on the brain like the THC in smoked marijuana, but eliminates having to inhale the otherwise harmful smoke contained in the illegal drug, Valeant said.

Cesamet is a Schedule II drug, meaning it has a high potential for abuse. The 1-milligram tablets are meant to be taken twice daily before cancer patients undergo chemotherapy and up to 48 hours following treatment. Side effects include euphoria, drowsiness, vertigo and dry mouth."

smoking any substance is damaging to a number of tissues it interacts with when inhaled. with synthetic thc you dont smoke anything. as ive already quoted, you take it in pill form which completely the smoke altogether.

the main reasons why drugs are synthetsized are 1) to reduce side effects, 2) improve potency, 3) improve delivery system, 4) cheaper to produce in quantity & reduce impact on environment. most drugs are synthesized to some extent or altered at the molecular level. very few drugs are best in 100% pure form.

₪RapSody₪

but if they are tying to synthesize THC, that means that THC has medical benefits. that means that smoking marijuana has medical benefits, which means that the FDA is once again incorrect and hypocritical. Again go back and read the quote you posted :

"This article, by Pete Guither, provides a bit more information on the hypocrisy of the US government claiming no medicinal value of marijuana, yet providing FDA-approved marijuana to people, such as Irv Rosenfeld."

That's right, the FDA maintains marijuana has no medical use while at the same time approving it to use as a drug for certain people. how in the world does that logic work? And also, the synthetic THC substitutes have failed to work the same as marijuana for cancer patients in the past.

Rather than respond to public and political demands for marijuana's medical availability, federal drug agencies are instead promoting bureaucratically sanctioned alternatives which are synthetic, expensive and often ineffective. It is ironic that after decades of pretending marijuana is medically useless, federal drug agencies are now aggressively pushing synthetic Marinol, the so-called "pot pill," by arguing it is as safe and effective as marijuana.(43)

Patients familiar with the synthetic "pot pill" have strongly condemned the bureaucrats for "pushing" an inferior substitute. One AIDS patient recently told a reporter,

"I tried [Marinol]. I went through five pills before I was able to keep one down....When I did manage to keep one down it took a long while to take effect, and only worked about half a day. Two or three tokes on a joint helps me immediately."(44)

Cancer patients quickly discovered smoking marijuana is far more effective than swallowing oral THC pills.(45) During the DEA hearings before Judge Young, one researcher, Norman Zinberg, M.D., testified that during his 1974 research nearly half the patients quit his legal, THC-based study in order to obtain illegal, but more effective, marijuana.(46)

45.) "Theoretically, smoking might be the preferable route since it results in less variability of absorption through the gastro-intestinal route. Moreover, smoking provides greater opportunity for individual patient control by permitting the patient to regulate and maintain the `high'." S. Sallan, M.D., N. Zinberg, M.D., & E.I. Frei III, M.D. "Antiemetic Effect of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Patients Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 293, No. 16, (October 15, 1975), pp. 795-797.

46.) Direct Testimony of Norman Zinberg, M.D., Marijuana, Medicine & The Law, Vol. I, p. 416.

44.) "They Smoke Pot, But Not to Get High," by Sylvia Rubin, San Francisco Chronicle, March 13, 1992.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

$$$ C-Money $$$

This whole conversation between you two is fuckin ridiculous.

Chicken wings you obviously have taken the side against legalization which i completely oppose. Your facts from the FDA are legit. If tobacco and alcohol which are two of the main killers of people across the world are legal and easily accessible, then marijuana should definitely be legal.

Rapsody u have a good point about the FDA. It is a government organization and honestly in this day and age the government most likely controls the flow of information and chooses what is said and done. Whether true or not it is highly likely.

either way i believe legalization is the best decision

__________________
C-Money Battle Record
W: 40 L: 12 KO: 38