Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Recent back pedaling by Science

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Has anyone else noticed the recent back pedaling by Science (Medicine)?
I assume Medicine is still considered a 'hard science', despite it's artistic nature in so many spheres.

I realize defenders of the True Faith will be quick to point out that we shouldn't find fault with Science for the political process. The global political process, I might add.
I call foul on that red herring.
Science does not exist in a vacuum, it has always had to contend with other disciplines, always will (god willing). Some defenders of the Faith claim it is above all of that ruckus, but alas, not so.

Fair and impartial, seeker and purveyor of Truth and Knowledge, so we are told, with good reasons I might add. Give credit for effort, even failed effort.
It is not supposed to succumb to the fallacies (lies) of outsiders.
We expect it to stand tall, in the face of ignorance, and represent Truth, in so far as it is able, it certainly has limits. No one that I know expects it to right all wrongs, but, it should not ignore claims of Scientific Knowledge, that is questionable in the minimal, and an affront to Reality in the maximum.
No one expects it to eradicate ignorance in other domains. However, in its own area, we expect, more.
Now, after generations of denial from the Medical community, we are finally seeing the light of reason reaching dark corners of human experience.
The political position is steadfast in denying what Medicine finally recognizes.

The DEA still has cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. "

We are told it is a greater threat to humanity than these Schedule II drugs: Vicodin, cocaine, (crank, speed, crystal, meth, ice), methadone, meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, hillbilly heroin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin.

Yes folks, drugs that have killed thousands, millions of people, not as dangerous as Cannabis, that has never been the alleged cause of death of a single person, disregarding the reefer madness hysteria caused by Harry Anslinger leading up to the Stamp Act.

We assume this position is based on Science.
The Scientific/Medical community has not objected until very recently, and even then, rather half-heartedly.

It seems for all of these decades, Medicine has said 'not our concern'.
Anecdotal evidence for generations, insufficient to raise concerns.
Quite probably life prolonging, and undoubtedly life enhancing medication, withheld due to racial and socio-economical bigotry.
Researchers forbidden to even study the potential benefits, and paid to 'dig up the dirt', to disparage and imprison users.

Our protector of Truth and Knowledge concerning the material world, has fallen short of expectations.
Some of us are not surprised.
This is business as usual in human affairs, and Science is not exempt, despite the claims of some.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:12:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:00:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the recent back pedaling by Science (Medicine)?
I assume Medicine is still considered a 'hard science', despite it's artistic nature in so many spheres.

I realize defenders of the True Faith will be quick to point out that we shouldn't find fault with Science for the political process. The global political process, I might add.
I call foul on that red herring.
Science does not exist in a vacuum, it has always had to contend with other disciplines, always will (god willing). Some defenders of the Faith claim it is above all of that ruckus, but alas, not so.

Fair and impartial, seeker and purveyor of Truth and Knowledge, so we are told, with good reasons I might add. Give credit for effort, even failed effort.
It is not supposed to succumb to the fallacies (lies) of outsiders.
We expect it to stand tall, in the face of ignorance, and represent Truth, in so far as it is able, it certainly has limits. No one that I know expects it to right all wrongs, but, it should not ignore claims of Scientific Knowledge, that is questionable in the minimal, and an affront to Reality in the maximum.
No one expects it to eradicate ignorance in other domains. However, in its own area, we expect, more.
Now, after generations of denial from the Medical community, we are finally seeing the light of reason reaching dark corners of human experience.
The political position is steadfast in denying what Medicine finally recognizes.

The DEA still has cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. "

We are told it is a greater threat to humanity than these Schedule II drugs: Vicodin, cocaine, (crank, speed, crystal, meth, ice), methadone, meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, hillbilly heroin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin.

Yes folks, drugs that have killed thousands, millions of people, not as dangerous as Cannabis, that has never been the alleged cause of death of a single person, disregarding the reefer madness hysteria caused by Harry Anslinger leading up to the Stamp Act.

We assume this position is based on Science.
The Scientific/Medical community has not objected until very recently, and even then, rather half-heartedly.

It seems for all of these decades, Medicine has said 'not our concern'.
Anecdotal evidence for generations, insufficient to raise concerns.
Quite probably life prolonging, and undoubtedly life enhancing medication, withheld due to racial and socio-economical bigotry.
Researchers forbidden to even study the potential benefits, and paid to 'dig up the dirt', to disparage and imprison users.

Our protector of Truth and Knowledge concerning the material world, has fallen short of expectations.
Some of us are not surprised.
This is business as usual in human affairs, and Science is not exempt, despite the claims of some.

Well, first off id say that the medical community at large hasnt really cared about Cannabis. The only ones that do are the ones who are actually prescribing and/or supporting its use, and there have been many doctors who do so. Just go to Holland and see.

Secondly, Cannabis has caused deaths.... There have been multiple, more than multiple cases of people who were high while driving and have killed themselves and/or others. It would be stupid to ignore this.

Thirdly, the DEA is a federal agency, and the US has legalized marijuana between some states even as far back as 2012. It will be a long time before the federal laws change, but the state laws are changing enough from a long enough time ago, that this shouldnt really be a point of discussion from a DEA standpoint.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:57:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:12:11 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:00:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the recent back pedaling by Science (Medicine)?
I assume Medicine is still considered a 'hard science', despite it's artistic nature in so many spheres.

I realize defenders of the True Faith will be quick to point out that we shouldn't find fault with Science for the political process. The global political process, I might add.
I call foul on that red herring.
Science does not exist in a vacuum, it has always had to contend with other disciplines, always will (god willing). Some defenders of the Faith claim it is above all of that ruckus, but alas, not so.

Fair and impartial, seeker and purveyor of Truth and Knowledge, so we are told, with good reasons I might add. Give credit for effort, even failed effort.
It is not supposed to succumb to the fallacies (lies) of outsiders.
We expect it to stand tall, in the face of ignorance, and represent Truth, in so far as it is able, it certainly has limits. No one that I know expects it to right all wrongs, but, it should not ignore claims of Scientific Knowledge, that is questionable in the minimal, and an affront to Reality in the maximum.
No one expects it to eradicate ignorance in other domains. However, in its own area, we expect, more.
Now, after generations of denial from the Medical community, we are finally seeing the light of reason reaching dark corners of human experience.
The political position is steadfast in denying what Medicine finally recognizes.

The DEA still has cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. "

We are told it is a greater threat to humanity than these Schedule II drugs: Vicodin, cocaine, (crank, speed, crystal, meth, ice), methadone, meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, hillbilly heroin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin.

Yes folks, drugs that have killed thousands, millions of people, not as dangerous as Cannabis, that has never been the alleged cause of death of a single person, disregarding the reefer madness hysteria caused by Harry Anslinger leading up to the Stamp Act.

We assume this position is based on Science.
The Scientific/Medical community has not objected until very recently, and even then, rather half-heartedly.

It seems for all of these decades, Medicine has said 'not our concern'.
Anecdotal evidence for generations, insufficient to raise concerns.
Quite probably life prolonging, and undoubtedly life enhancing medication, withheld due to racial and socio-economical bigotry.
Researchers forbidden to even study the potential benefits, and paid to 'dig up the dirt', to disparage and imprison users.

Our protector of Truth and Knowledge concerning the material world, has fallen short of expectations.
Some of us are not surprised.
This is business as usual in human affairs, and Science is not exempt, despite the claims of some.

Well, first off id say that the medical community at large hasnt really cared about Cannabis. The only ones that do are the ones who are actually prescribing and/or supporting its use, and there have been many doctors who do so. Just go to Holland and see.

Secondly, Cannabis has caused deaths.... There have been multiple, more than multiple cases of people who were high while driving and have killed themselves and/or others. It would be stupid to ignore this.

Any evidence to support your opinion?
I have this, sourced from the U.S. Department of Transportation (not exactly a cannabis advocacy group):

A more recent report entitled "Marijuana and Actual Performance", DOT-HS-808-078, noted that "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug....It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving".

The study concluded that: "...An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be actually predicted from either measured concentration of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside "sobriety" tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicated that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual performance under the influence of THC...".

The researchers found that it "appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample". Note: "THC" stands for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana. THC is fairly quickly converted by the body into inert metabolites, which can stay in the body for hours or even days. It is these metabolites that police blood tests in DUI arrests detect and measure.

In other words, (1) marijuna may not impair driving ability at all, and (2) the blood "evidence" only measures an inactive substance which may have been there for days.

Lawrence Taylor is a former prosecutor, Fulbright professor of law, and author of the standard legal textbook, "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th Edition". He is the senior member of an AV-rated firm of California DUI lawyers practicing DUI defense exclusively since 1979.
http://ezinearticles.com...

~ ~

Thirdly, the DEA is a federal agency, and the US has legalized marijuana between some states even as far back as 2012. It will be a long time before the federal laws change, but the state laws are changing enough from a long enough time ago, that this shouldnt really be a point of discussion from a DEA standpoint.

'As far back as 2012' - what are you, like twelve years old?
2012 is very recent to most of us, adults.

For the record, I was discussing Science.
You have some Scientific/Medicial defense of cannabis prior to 2012?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 9:36:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
From the darkness of the medical community there have been some rays of light, so I will share some of them.
~ ~
A total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs - cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I'll cut right to the chase - the deaths per thousand live births - the numbers tell the story.
"No drugs at birth" deaths....... 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births
"Cocaine positive" deaths.......17.7 deaths per 1000 live births
"Opiate positive" deaths.......18.4 deaths per 1000 live births
"Cannabis positive" deaths.... 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births
The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the "No drugs" babies - that was to be expected. But look at the "cannabis" babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The "cannabis" infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the "No drugs" infants have!

Cannabis has a remarkable safety record - it has never caused a single death by overdose, so it is safer than the Tylenol that we give to our children. Some cannabinoids, like CBD, can't get you high no matter how much you take, but are still quite effective medically. Perhaps it is time that someone considers doing a study of pediatric, non-psychoactive cannabinoid use to treat "failure to thrive" infants! http://www.salem-news.com...
~ ~
Comparing the two groups, the neonates of mothers who used marijuana showed better physiological stability at 1 month and required less examiner facilitation to reach an organized state and become available for social stimulation.
The results of the comparison of neonates of the heavy-marijuana-using mothers and those of the non-using mothers were even more striking"
"The heavily exposed neonates were more socially responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days than their matched counterparts.
"quality of their alertness was higher;
"their motor and autonomic systems were more robust;
"they were less irritable;
"they were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone;
"they needed less examiner facilitation to become organized;
"they had better self-regulation;
"judged to be more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of non-using mothers at 1 month of age
http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com...

~ ~
Antitumor Effects
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas ) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo . In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.
Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis. One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.
http://www.cancer.gov...
~ ~~
Cannabis Is Neuroprotective
A fascinating new study shows that cannabis offers some neuroprotection to young people who engaged in binge drinking episodes. The binge drinkers were young " aged 16-19. This is an age at which the effects of drugs on the brain may be particularly bad, since the brain is continuing to develop.
What was shocking was that binge drinking in adolescents caused the type and degree of damage that it did. Binge drinking caused actual losses of white matter in the brain, similar to the damage seen with drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.
The study was fascinating because if the adolescents used cannabis in addition to binge drinking, the damage was notably less than if they binge drank alone. Therefore, cannabis use was somewhat neuroprotective to the brain in terms of the damage caused by binge drinking.
This does not mean that cannabis use is good for your brain, or that it does not damage the brain. But no study of cannabis use has ever found anything as dramatic as extensive white matter losses in the brain (that"s a pretty serious type of damage). So, if anything, binge drinking in adolescence (which many adolescents do) is remarkably worse for your brain than using cannabis in adolescence, which is an amazing thing to say right there.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com...
~ ~
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:06:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:57:49 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Any evidence to support your opinion?
I have this, sourced from the U.S. Department of Transportation (not exactly a cannabis advocacy group):

A more recent report entitled "Marijuana and Actual Performance", DOT-HS-808-078, noted that "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug....It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving".

The study concluded that: "...An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be actually predicted from either measured concentration of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside "sobriety" tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicated that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual performance under the influence of THC...".

The researchers found that it "appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample". Note: "THC" stands for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana. THC is fairly quickly converted by the body into inert metabolites, which can stay in the body for hours or even days. It is these metabolites that police blood tests in DUI arrests detect and measure.

In other words, (1) marijuna may not impair driving ability at all, and (2) the blood "evidence" only measures an inactive substance which may have been there for days.


Lawrence Taylor is a former prosecutor, Fulbright professor of law, and author of the standard legal textbook, "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th Edition". He is the senior member of an AV-rated firm of California DUI lawyers practicing DUI defense exclusively since 1979.
http://ezinearticles.com...


First off, the final report of "Marijuana and Actual Performance", was written in 1993, with most tests done in the 80s. Not exactly "recent".

Secondly, there were multiple tests with multiple range of different outcomes, many including alcohol as well. One test found that even with Marijuana and alcohol, no dramatic performance failures occurred. However, all tests concluded that the effect of THC was significant.

Thirdly, you seemed to have omitted the addendum of the conclusion of the researcher: "However, this impairment is mediated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example, by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response -will be required.. Unfortunately, such compensation is not possible where events are unexpected or where continuous attention is required."

Now, onto some of the evidence that Marijuana produces car accidents:

First, we have studies with regards to toxicology of impaired drivers who were killed, which showed Cannabis as being the number one non-alcoholic drug within the system of the person killed. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...

Secondly, we have groups like the IACM, a pro-cannabis organization, stating things like "Even frequent users of cannabis do not seem to have a higher accident risk than non-users, as long as they are not under the acute influence of the drug", which essentially means that they are admitting that if you are under the acute influences of the drug, you do infact have a higher accident risk.

'As far back as 2012' - what are you, like twelve years old?
2012 is very recent to most of us, adults.

For the record, I was discussing Science.
You have some Scientific/Medicial defense of cannabis prior to 2012?

Since you called 1993, as "Recent", i dont doubt that 2012 is very recent to you.

But I was talking about the DEA with regards to that, and yes, US laws take a very long time to repeal and change even if it isnt practiced for a very long time. Take the Laws in the US regarding regulation of Romanis, for example, that was not enforced but only officially repealed from the law in 1998. And of course there are adultery laws that still exist today, despite the fact that they are not practiced, and many states have started officially abolishing those laws.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:22:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:00:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the recent back pedaling by Science (Medicine)?
I assume Medicine is still considered a 'hard science', despite it's artistic nature in so many spheres.

I don't think I understand the gripe with "Science (Medicine)" in this. The laws are a political issue.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 11:38:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure most people had no idea what role the scientific community played in the prohibition of marijuana, if any. I certainly grew up just being told it was bad. I've never even seen a citation of any scientific or pseudo-scientific study showing the supposed ill effects of the drug. As far as I know, it has always been a hyped-up, ignorant crusade against drugs in general that just happened to include weed. As tkubok pointed out, the medical and scientific community appeared to be mostly apathetic about it, rather than against it.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:03:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 10:06:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:57:49 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Any evidence to support your opinion?
I have this, sourced from the U.S. Department of Transportation (not exactly a cannabis advocacy group):

A more recent report entitled "Marijuana and Actual Performance", DOT-HS-808-078, noted that "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug....It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving".

The study concluded that: "...An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be actually predicted from either measured concentration of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside "sobriety" tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicated that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual performance under the influence of THC...".

The researchers found that it "appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample". Note: "THC" stands for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana. THC is fairly quickly converted by the body into inert metabolites, which can stay in the body for hours or even days. It is these metabolites that police blood tests in DUI arrests detect and measure.

In other words, (1) marijuna may not impair driving ability at all, and (2) the blood "evidence" only measures an inactive substance which may have been there for days.


Lawrence Taylor is a former prosecutor, Fulbright professor of law, and author of the standard legal textbook, "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th Edition". He is the senior member of an AV-rated firm of California DUI lawyers practicing DUI defense exclusively since 1979.
http://ezinearticles.com...


First off, the final report of "Marijuana and Actual Performance", was written in 1993, with most tests done in the 80s. Not exactly "recent".

And your point?
Am I expected be believe not recent, means not accurate?
I am the one who pointed out there is a lack of recent information.
If you want to say I should not have said my reference was 'recent', fine. It is not recent.
What does that change? Nothing.

Secondly, there were multiple tests with multiple range of different outcomes, many including alcohol as well. One test found that even with Marijuana and alcohol, no dramatic performance failures occurred. However, all tests concluded that the effect of THC was significant.

Here is a quote I read:
"THCs adverse affects on driving appear relatively small."
That is from the technical report, before the contents page.
Then this, page four:
A second assumption is that drug concentrations found are well correlated with performance impairment, which holds for alcohol but seems not to for marijuana.

It should be noted, however, that the frequencies of injured drivers showing THC alone are commonly very low and prohibit any definite conclusion.

In summary, epidemiological literature shows that people do drive after marijuana use and that drivers involved in accidents often show the drug's presence, but results are inconclusive especially because of the high proportion of cases that also involve alcohol use. Therefore, the extent marijuana contributes to traffic accident causality remains obscure.

page 7-
The authors concluded that the drug (THC) effects on performance were not dramatic since no major differences were found between conditions with respect to observer ratings.

page 8
The authors said that drivers under the influence of marijuana appeared to compensate for what they felt were the adverse effects of the drug by maintaining control effort, and decreasing speed to reduce the required rate of information processing.

Thirdly, you seemed to have omitted the addendum of the conclusion of the researcher: "However, this impairment is mediated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example, by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response -will be required.. Unfortunately, such compensation is not possible where events are unexpected or where continuous attention is required."

You forgot the last line - "Effects on driving behavior are present shortly after smoking but do not continue for extended periods."

So your complaint is - that cannabis smokers are overly cautious.
Seriously?
If you have read any article on distracted driving, operating you car radio is probably more dangerous than driving on cannabis.
Cell phones - no brainer.
Talking to a friend or relative - very distractive.
Cannabis is far from the top of the list of problem issues.

Now, onto some of the evidence that Marijuana produces car accidents:

First, we have studies with regards to toxicology of impaired drivers who were killed, which showed Cannabis as being the number one non-alcoholic drug within the system of the person killed. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...

So, people who were drunk on alcohol, were in fatal accidents, and about one third of them had THC in their system. That is what I read, although it is not clear.
I see nothing to distinguish between drivers with only one drug, or multiple drugs.
Do you?
And how does having a drug in your system equate with it being a contributing factor?
Correlation does not equal causation.
Evidence shows, in the DOT study, that THC cannot be linked to risky driving, or accidents. That means there is strong doubt on the causation issue, so the correlation issue is meaningless.

Secondly, we have groups like the IACM, a pro-cannabis organization, stating things like "Even frequent users of cannabis do not seem to have a higher accident risk than non-users, as long as they are not under the acute influence of the drug", which essentially means that they are admitting that if you are under the acute influences of the drug, you do infact have a higher accident risk.

I see no such admission.
"Accute influence" - means what? First ten minutes after smoking?
Less time than many cell phone conversations.
They allow that if there is an issue, it disappears shortly, unlike alcohol, that is what I see.

'As far back as 2012' - what are you, like twelve years old?
2012 is very recent to most of us, adults.

For the record, I was discussing Science.
You have some Scientific/Medicial defense of cannabis prior to 2012?

Since you called 1993, as "Recent", i dont doubt that 2012 is very recent to you.

But I was talking about the DEA with regards to that, and yes, US laws take a very long time to repeal and change even if it isnt practiced for a very long time. Take the Laws in the US regarding regulation of Romanis, for example, that was not enforced but only officially repealed from the law in 1998. And of course there are adultery laws that still exist today, despite the fact that they are not practiced, and many states have started officially abolishing those laws.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 10:22:47 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:00:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the recent back pedaling by Science (Medicine)?
I assume Medicine is still considered a 'hard science', despite it's artistic nature in so many spheres.

I don't think I understand the gripe with "Science (Medicine)" in this. The laws are a political issue.

Here is what DEA laws say:
"with no currently accepted medical use"
To me, that sounds like a medical issue.
Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:14:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I don't think I understand the gripe with "Science (Medicine)" in this. The laws are a political issue.

Here is what DEA laws say:
"with no currently accepted medical use"
To me, that sounds like a medical issue.
Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.

You are pushing blame generically on a very large group undeserving.

Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
Well, this is untrue.

If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.
Not truth, but they control the laws.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 11:38:15 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people had no idea what role the scientific community played in the prohibition of marijuana, if any. I certainly grew up just being told it was bad. I've never even seen a citation of any scientific or pseudo-scientific study showing the supposed ill effects of the drug. As far as I know, it has always been a hyped-up, ignorant crusade against drugs in general that just happened to include weed. As tkubok pointed out, the medical and scientific community appeared to be mostly apathetic about it, rather than against it.

Okay. So there exist a substance than can be serious treatment, for serious medical conditions, and the medical community is apathetic, disinterested.
And you have no problem with this?
Despite generations, centuries, of 'home remedy' reports of the beneficial use of MJ. the government says '"with no currently accepted medical use", and Science has no interest in disputing this.
No interest in even studying the drug, to see if claims are true, on either side.
Scientists do many studies (government sponsored), to show the ill effects, and publish then, but no interest in benefits.
Lots of press releases on the ill effects of MJ, with continued "no currently accepted medical use", and Science is apathetic.
I wish they had been more apathetic on the negative reports.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:17:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/23/2015 11:38:15 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people had no idea what role the scientific community played in the prohibition of marijuana, if any. I certainly grew up just being told it was bad. I've never even seen a citation of any scientific or pseudo-scientific study showing the supposed ill effects of the drug. As far as I know, it has always been a hyped-up, ignorant crusade against drugs in general that just happened to include weed. As tkubok pointed out, the medical and scientific community appeared to be mostly apathetic about it, rather than against it.

Okay. So there exist a substance than can be serious treatment, for serious medical conditions, and the medical community is apathetic, disinterested.
And you have no problem with this?
Despite generations, centuries, of 'home remedy' reports of the beneficial use of MJ. the government says '"with no currently accepted medical use", and Science has no interest in disputing this.
No interest in even studying the drug, to see if claims are true, on either side.
Scientists do many studies (government sponsored), to show the ill effects, and publish then, but no interest in benefits.
Lots of press releases on the ill effects of MJ, with continued "no currently accepted medical use", and Science is apathetic.
I wish they had been more apathetic on the negative reports.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...

What is this gripe you have? The media's representation, the political bent? All valid, but "science" seem like the wrong target.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:17:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Okay. So there exist a substance than can be serious treatment, for serious medical conditions, and the medical community is apathetic, disinterested.
And you have no problem with this?
Despite generations, centuries, of 'home remedy' reports of the beneficial use of MJ. the government says '"with no currently accepted medical use", and Science has no interest in disputing this.
No interest in even studying the drug, to see if claims are true, on either side.
Scientists do many studies (government sponsored), to show the ill effects, and publish then, but no interest in benefits.
Lots of press releases on the ill effects of MJ, with continued "no currently accepted medical use", and Science is apathetic.
I wish they had been more apathetic on the negative reports.

A simple search on google can cure your ignorance in this matter. There are numerous scientific studies on using cannabis as medicine and arguing that there are not significant adverse effects. Attached are a few, I am sure are capable of using a search engine to find more if you so desire.

http://www.doctordeluca.com...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 1:06:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:03:55 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

And your point?
Am I expected be believe not recent, means not accurate?
I am the one who pointed out there is a lack of recent information.
If you want to say I should not have said my reference was 'recent', fine. It is not recent.
What does that change? Nothing.

I guess its as relevant as when you pointed out how my calling "as far back as 2012", as "very recent" to you. So what was your point in saying that, may i ask?

Here is a quote I read:
"THCs adverse affects on driving appear relatively small."
That is from the technical report, before the contents page.
Then this, page four:
A second assumption is that drug concentrations found are well correlated with performance impairment, which holds for alcohol but seems not to for marijuana.

It should be noted, however, that the frequencies of injured drivers showing THC alone are commonly very low and prohibit any definite conclusion.

In summary, epidemiological literature shows that people do drive after marijuana use and that drivers involved in accidents often show the drug's presence, but results are inconclusive especially because of the high proportion of cases that also involve alcohol use. Therefore, the extent marijuana contributes to traffic accident causality remains obscure.

page 7-
The authors concluded that the drug (THC) effects on performance were not dramatic since no major differences were found between conditions with respect to observer ratings.

page 8
The authors said that drivers under the influence of marijuana appeared to compensate for what they felt were the adverse effects of the drug by maintaining control effort, and decreasing speed to reduce the required rate of information processing.

Response to this is below.

Thirdly, you seemed to have omitted the addendum of the conclusion of the researcher: "However, this impairment is mediated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example, by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response -will be required.. Unfortunately, such compensation is not possible where events are unexpected or where continuous attention is required."

You forgot the last line - "Effects on driving behavior are present shortly after smoking but do not continue for extended periods."

So your complaint is - that cannabis smokers are overly cautious.
Seriously?
If you have read any article on distracted driving, operating you car radio is probably more dangerous than driving on cannabis.
Cell phones - no brainer.
Talking to a friend or relative - very distractive.
Cannabis is far from the top of the list of problem issues.

No, my complaint is that the article admits that "overt caution" is meaningless when events are unexpected and/or where continuous attention is required, and therefore compensation by the drivers cannot occur.

So, people who were drunk on alcohol, were in fatal accidents, and about one third of them had THC in their system. That is what I read, although it is not clear.
I see nothing to distinguish between drivers with only one drug, or multiple drugs.
Do you?
And how does having a drug in your system equate with it being a contributing factor?
Correlation does not equal causation.
Evidence shows, in the DOT study, that THC cannot be linked to risky driving, or accidents. That means there is strong doubt on the causation issue, so the correlation issue is meaningless.

In the study, the prevalence of alcohol remains the same from the start of the recording in 1999 to 2010, and yet the prevalence of Cannabis alone increased 3 fold from 1999 to 2010. This is why the correlation is a valid means to suppose causation.

I see no such admission.
"Accute influence" - means what? First ten minutes after smoking?
Less time than many cell phone conversations.
They allow that if there is an issue, it disappears shortly, unlike alcohol, that is what I see.

Right, because no one smokes while they drive. Absurd. And no one drives right after they smoke, after taking a quick break to take a puff or two. Even more absurd.

And also, acute symptoms of cannabis last anywhere from 1-2 hours or longer depending on the person. So not really 10 minutes, no.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

'As far back as 2012' - what are you, like twelve years old?
2012 is very recent to most of us, adults.

For the record, I was discussing Science.
You have some Scientific/Medicial defense of cannabis prior to 2012?

Since you called 1993, as "Recent", i dont doubt that 2012 is very recent to you.

But I was talking about the DEA with regards to that, and yes, US laws take a very long time to repeal and change even if it isnt practiced for a very long time. Take the Laws in the US regarding regulation of Romanis, for example, that was not enforced but only officially repealed from the law in 1998. And of course there are adultery laws that still exist today, despite the fact that they are not practiced, and many states have started officially abolishing those laws.

im guessing you have a witty response to this as well, which explains why its taking you so long to respond to this, so ill wait.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:14:38 PM, TBR wrote:

I don't think I understand the gripe with "Science (Medicine)" in this. The laws are a political issue.

Here is what DEA laws say:
"with no currently accepted medical use"
To me, that sounds like a medical issue.
Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.

You are pushing blame generically on a very large group undeserving.

Well, it seems I have overcome your first objection, that there is no scientific/medical element to this issue.
So now a new objection - I am not properly identifying the group at fault.
Who is the group then?
When I have belonged to a group, members accepted praise for good deeds, and if some members misbehaved, well, we had to answer for that as well.
It seems since there is no appropriate identifiable group, there is no call for criticism. Is that it?
There in only one body for ensuring the integrity of Scientific knowledge, and that is the scientific community, at large. Do you disagree?
If you are able to point the finger, tell me.
What group in the scientific/medical community deserves the blame?
No criticism is warranted, seems to me an unsatisfactory resolution.

Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
Well, this is untrue.

What?
An injustice is observed, the observer does nothing, and has no blame in the injustice?
The observer has not condoned the action, by inaction?
Well, this is untrue.

If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.
Not truth, but they control the laws.

it is not the law that I object to in my OP.
It is the justification for the law.
I do of course object to the law, that is beside the point.
If the justification for they law were not a total lack of medical use or value, I would have to look elsewhere for blame.
if the justification for the law were honest (bigotry), my complaint would be with social scientists.
The justification is Scientific, my complaint is with the Scientific community.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:30:39 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:17:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/23/2015 11:38:15 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people had no idea what role the scientific community played in the prohibition of marijuana, if any. I certainly grew up just being told it was bad. I've never even seen a citation of any scientific or pseudo-scientific study showing the supposed ill effects of the drug. As far as I know, it has always been a hyped-up, ignorant crusade against drugs in general that just happened to include weed. As tkubok pointed out, the medical and scientific community appeared to be mostly apathetic about it, rather than against it.

Okay. So there exist a substance than can be serious treatment, for serious medical conditions, and the medical community is apathetic, disinterested.
And you have no problem with this?
Despite generations, centuries, of 'home remedy' reports of the beneficial use of MJ. the government says '"with no currently accepted medical use", and Science has no interest in disputing this.
No interest in even studying the drug, to see if claims are true, on either side.
Scientists do many studies (government sponsored), to show the ill effects, and publish then, but no interest in benefits.
Lots of press releases on the ill effects of MJ, with continued "no currently accepted medical use", and Science is apathetic.
I wish they had been more apathetic on the negative reports.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...

What is this gripe you have? The media's representation, the political bent? All valid, but "science" seem like the wrong target.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...

Seems like the wrong target?
The media presented the scientific evidence it was fed by opponents.
The Scientific community was silent - for the most part.
I have been reading the scientific evidence against cannabis for nearly 50 years.
I did not have to go to the research papers, the results were fed to me by the media.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:15:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:34:55 PM, Floid wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:17:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Okay. So there exist a substance than can be serious treatment, for serious medical conditions, and the medical community is apathetic, disinterested.
And you have no problem with this?
Despite generations, centuries, of 'home remedy' reports of the beneficial use of MJ. the government says '"with no currently accepted medical use", and Science has no interest in disputing this.
No interest in even studying the drug, to see if claims are true, on either side.
Scientists do many studies (government sponsored), to show the ill effects, and publish then, but no interest in benefits.
Lots of press releases on the ill effects of MJ, with continued "no currently accepted medical use", and Science is apathetic.
I wish they had been more apathetic on the negative reports.

A simple search on google can cure your ignorance in this matter. There are numerous scientific studies on using cannabis as medicine and arguing that there are not significant adverse effects. Attached are a few, I am sure are capable of using a search engine to find more if you so desire.

http://www.doctordeluca.com...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Apparently you haven't read my posts.
I have posted studies favorable to cannabis. The problems is, they are the exception, they are not in the news reports, until recently, they are not guiding policy, and there are no objections from the broad Scientific community.
The official word is that cannabis is much more harmful that any reasonable person would conclude.
This attitude persists, because it is allowed to, because of the silence of the Scientific community.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:17:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 1:06:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:03:55 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

And your point?
Am I expected be believe not recent, means not accurate?
I am the one who pointed out there is a lack of recent information.
If you want to say I should not have said my reference was 'recent', fine. It is not recent.
What does that change? Nothing.

I guess its as relevant as when you pointed out how my calling "as far back as 2012", as "very recent" to you. So what was your point in saying that, may i ask?

I found it amusing.

Here is a quote I read:
"THCs adverse affects on driving appear relatively small."
That is from the technical report, before the contents page.
Then this, page four:
A second assumption is that drug concentrations found are well correlated with performance impairment, which holds for alcohol but seems not to for marijuana.

It should be noted, however, that the frequencies of injured drivers showing THC alone are commonly very low and prohibit any definite conclusion.

In summary, epidemiological literature shows that people do drive after marijuana use and that drivers involved in accidents often show the drug's presence, but results are inconclusive especially because of the high proportion of cases that also involve alcohol use. Therefore, the extent marijuana contributes to traffic accident causality remains obscure.

page 7-
The authors concluded that the drug (THC) effects on performance were not dramatic since no major differences were found between conditions with respect to observer ratings.

page 8
The authors said that drivers under the influence of marijuana appeared to compensate for what they felt were the adverse effects of the drug by maintaining control effort, and decreasing speed to reduce the required rate of information processing.

Response to this is below.

Thirdly, you seemed to have omitted the addendum of the conclusion of the researcher: "However, this impairment is mediated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example, by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response -will be required.. Unfortunately, such compensation is not possible where events are unexpected or where continuous attention is required."

You forgot the last line - "Effects on driving behavior are present shortly after smoking but do not continue for extended periods."

So your complaint is - that cannabis smokers are overly cautious.
Seriously?
If you have read any article on distracted driving, operating you car radio is probably more dangerous than driving on cannabis.
Cell phones - no brainer.
Talking to a friend or relative - very distractive.
Cannabis is far from the top of the list of problem issues.

No, my complaint is that the article admits that "overt caution" is meaningless when events are unexpected and/or where continuous attention is required, and therefore compensation by the drivers cannot occur.

So, people who were drunk on alcohol, were in fatal accidents, and about one third of them had THC in their system. That is what I read, although it is not clear.
I see nothing to distinguish between drivers with only one drug, or multiple drugs.
Do you?
And how does having a drug in your system equate with it being a contributing factor?
Correlation does not equal causation.
Evidence shows, in the DOT study, that THC cannot be linked to risky driving, or accidents. That means there is strong doubt on the causation issue, so the correlation issue is meaningless.

In the study, the prevalence of alcohol remains the same from the start of the recording in 1999 to 2010, and yet the prevalence of Cannabis alone increased 3 fold from 1999 to 2010. This is why the correlation is a valid means to suppose causation.

So help me here.
Apparently the accident rate, or fatality rate, increased three fold during this period, but I can not seem to find it.
If there were no corresponding increase, by some measurable standard (vehicles registered, miles driven, drivers licensed) then this would be a clear indicator that cannabis was not a casual factor.
I may wish to question that measurable standard - so what is it? And what is the increase from the baseline?

I see no such admission.
"Accute influence" - means what? First ten minutes after smoking?
Less time than many cell phone conversations.
They allow that if there is an issue, it disappears shortly, unlike alcohol, that is what I see.

Right, because no one smokes while they drive. Absurd. And no one drives right after they smoke, after taking a quick break to take a puff or two. Even more absurd.

And also, acute symptoms of cannabis last anywhere from 1-2 hours or longer depending on the person. So not really 10 minutes, no.

So, the only time there is a any increase in driver impairment is during acute influence periods, which we will say if for one or two hours.
Here is the bottom line conclusion from page 9 of the DOT report.
Yet there is little if any evidence to indicate that drivers who have used marijuana alone are any more likely to cause serious accidents than drug free drivers.

No qualifiers about 'acute influence'.
From what I know about driving and accidents, none of the vast majority of drivers are driving at optimum levels, and most of them are every bit as much at risk as cannabis users.
Prescription meds, sleep deprivation, distracted driving of many types, all causes of accidents.
The DOT report concludes Cannabis no special risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

'As far back as 2012' - what are you, like twelve years old?
2012 is very recent to most of us, adults.

For the record, I was discussing Science.
You have some Scientific/Medicial defense of cannabis prior to 2012?

Since you called 1993, as "Recent", i dont doubt that 2012 is very recent to you.

But I was talking about the DEA with regards to that, and yes, US laws take a very long time to repeal and change even if it isnt practiced for a very long time. Take the Laws in the US regarding regulation of Romanis, for example, that was not enforced but only officially repealed from the law in 1998. And of course there are adultery laws that still exist today, despite the fact that they are not practiced, and many states have started officially abolishing those laws.

im guessing you have a witty response to this as well, which explains why its taking you so long to respond to this, so ill wait.

I see. you believe I have no life outside this chat room, and that you are my only responder.
Neither of which is true.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:19:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:15:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I did not have to go to the research papers, the results were fed to me by the media.

That would explain your ignorance and false notions.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:20:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

You are pushing blame generically on a very large group undeserving.

Well, it seems I have overcome your first objection, that there is no scientific/medical element to this issue.
I don't see how.

So now a new objection - I am not properly identifying the group at fault.
Who is the group then?
When I have belonged to a group, members accepted praise for good deeds, and if some members misbehaved, well, we had to answer for that as well.
It seems since there is no appropriate identifiable group, there is no call for criticism. Is that it?
There in only one body for ensuring the integrity of Scientific knowledge, and that is the scientific community, at large. Do you disagree?
If you are able to point the finger, tell me.
What group in the scientific/medical community deserves the blame?
No criticism is warranted, seems to me an unsatisfactory resolution.


Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
Well, this is untrue.

What?
An injustice is observed, the observer does nothing, and has no blame in the injustice?
The observer has not condoned the action, by inaction?
Well, this is untrue.

If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.
Not truth, but they control the laws.

it is not the law that I object to in my OP.
It is the justification for the law.
I do of course object to the law, that is beside the point.
If the justification for they law were not a total lack of medical use or value, I would have to look elsewhere for blame.
if the justification for the law were honest (bigotry), my complaint would be with social scientists.
The justification is Scientific, my complaint is with the Scientific community.

I posted links to peer-reviewed articles. A JAMA article. The science community is, and has been researching. Law make it more difficult now, and more so in the past, but the entire premises of your argument seems flawed by this point - one you have driven past.

I still am trying to understand what I can only describe as anger at the wrong people.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:27:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:19:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:15:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I did not have to go to the research papers, the results were fed to me by the media.

That would explain your ignorance and false notions.

Simply because I do not have to go to the research papers does not mean I did not.
I did.
Remember my comment - 'I have been reading the scientific evidence against cannabis for nearly 50 years.'
Your ignorance is forgiven.
And now, list my false notions, and we may get on with the discussion.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:20:41 PM, TBR wrote:

You are pushing blame generically on a very large group undeserving.

Well, it seems I have overcome your first objection, that there is no scientific/medical element to this issue.
I don't see how.

I don't see how you don't see how.

So now a new objection - I am not properly identifying the group at fault.
Who is the group then?
When I have belonged to a group, members accepted praise for good deeds, and if some members misbehaved, well, we had to answer for that as well.
It seems since there is no appropriate identifiable group, there is no call for criticism. Is that it?
There in only one body for ensuring the integrity of Scientific knowledge, and that is the scientific community, at large. Do you disagree?
If you are able to point the finger, tell me.
What group in the scientific/medical community deserves the blame?
No criticism is warranted, seems to me an unsatisfactory resolution.


Science agrees, by silence if nothing else, that MJ has no medical use.
Well, this is untrue.

What?
An injustice is observed, the observer does nothing, and has no blame in the injustice?
The observer has not condoned the action, by inaction?
Well, this is untrue.

If you want to say that politics should or does rule Scientific truth, have at it.
Not truth, but they control the laws.

it is not the law that I object to in my OP.
It is the justification for the law.
I do of course object to the law, that is beside the point.
If the justification for they law were not a total lack of medical use or value, I would have to look elsewhere for blame.
if the justification for the law were honest (bigotry), my complaint would be with social scientists.
The justification is Scientific, my complaint is with the Scientific community.

I posted links to peer-reviewed articles. A JAMA article. The science community is, and has been researching. Law make it more difficult now, and more so in the past, but the entire premises of your argument seems flawed by this point - one you have driven past.

I still am trying to understand what I can only describe as anger at the wrong people.

Since the 1930s false evidence has been presented against cannabis, in the U.S.
At the heart of this was what was purported to be scientific and medical evidence.
Now, in recent years - there has been an about face, a back pedaling.
When did this start? Without researching, I'm guessing 2008, coinciding with the financial meltdown.
Like they say, follow the money.

When Science says cannabis is terrible and has no useful purpose, I blame Science.
Oh well.
When Science allows itself to be used for less than honorable purposes, I blame Science.
Oh well.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:45:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Since the 1930s false evidence has been presented against cannabis, in the U.S.
At the heart of this was what was purported to be scientific and medical evidence.
Now, in recent years - there has been an about face, a back pedaling.
When did this start? Without researching, I'm guessing 2008, coinciding with the financial meltdown.
Like they say, follow the money.

When Science says cannabis is terrible and has no useful purpose, I blame Science.
Oh well.
When Science allows itself to be used for less than honorable purposes, I blame Science.
Oh well.

OK. I see the root of your issue, but still don't generally buy it.

Let me put it this way. Say I am working on base research. I may not have to please drug companies, but they do make part of my funding. I would expect SOME money for research using substances that are banned, and we see that. Not just from 2008, but for a long time before.

Now, say I am working for Ellie Lily. The chances for me to get ANY real lab time studying controlled substances slim. However, there are research papers that came out of large drug companies for years.

The propaganda came from politicians. The push-back from society and lawmakers. You, to me, seem to blame the wrong people.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:02:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:45:11 PM, TBR wrote:

Since the 1930s false evidence has been presented against cannabis, in the U.S.
At the heart of this was what was purported to be scientific and medical evidence.
Now, in recent years - there has been an about face, a back pedaling.
When did this start? Without researching, I'm guessing 2008, coinciding with the financial meltdown.
Like they say, follow the money.

When Science says cannabis is terrible and has no useful purpose, I blame Science.
Oh well.
When Science allows itself to be used for less than honorable purposes, I blame Science.
Oh well.

OK. I see the root of your issue, but still don't generally buy it.

Let me put it this way. Say I am working on base research. I may not have to please drug companies, but they do make part of my funding. I would expect SOME money for research using substances that are banned, and we see that. Not just from 2008, but for a long time before.

Now, say I am working for Ellie Lily. The chances for me to get ANY real lab time studying controlled substances slim. However, there are research papers that came out of large drug companies for years.

The propaganda came from politicians. The push-back from society and lawmakers. You, to me, seem to blame the wrong people.

Politicians used Science for justification.
You seem to be missing my suggestion for 2008 as a point of demarcation.
It is much deeper than research money.
The war on drugs is no longer economical viable.
Refusing tax money from sale of cannabis is no longer viable.
With serious problems facing the globe, steadfast objections to cannabis is wasted energy and resources.

Cannabis offers a wide range of solutions to a wide range of problems, and we can no longer afford to ignore this - because of the meltdown of 2008.
Medical is one, there are others.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Politicians used Science for justification.
Sure they do.

You seem to be missing my suggestion for 2008 as a point of demarcation.
Not really, just not entirely agreeing.

It is much deeper than research money.
The war on drugs is no longer economical viable.
Refusing tax money from sale of cannabis is no longer viable.
Debatable, but regardless, I am not complaining that we collectively are moving past this block.

With serious problems facing the globe, steadfast objections to cannabis is wasted energy and resources.
Yes, and we seem to be moving forward.


Cannabis offers a wide range of solutions to a wide range of problems, and we can no longer afford to ignore this - because of the meltdown of 2008.
Medical is one, there are others.

Look. Cannabis is not a "miracle", but it has use both medically and is not harmful socially. I don't see the reason to look backwards with contempt for just about the ONLY people that were doing anything to "level" the propaganda with the reality. It wasn't the "legalize it dude" campaign that turned the tide, it was medical use.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:27:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 3:09:55 PM, TBR wrote:

Politicians used Science for justification.
Sure they do.

You seem to be missing my suggestion for 2008 as a point of demarcation.
Not really, just not entirely agreeing.

It is much deeper than research money.
The war on drugs is no longer economical viable.
Refusing tax money from sale of cannabis is no longer viable.
Debatable, but regardless, I am not complaining that we collectively are moving past this block.

With serious problems facing the globe, steadfast objections to cannabis is wasted energy and resources.
Yes, and we seem to be moving forward.


Cannabis offers a wide range of solutions to a wide range of problems, and we can no longer afford to ignore this - because of the meltdown of 2008.
Medical is one, there are others.


Look. Cannabis is not a "miracle", but it has use both medically and is not harmful socially. I don't see the reason to look backwards with contempt for just about the ONLY people that were doing anything to "level" the propaganda with the reality. It wasn't the "legalize it dude" campaign that turned the tide, it was medical use.

Medical use has been around since day one.
150 years ago it was a recommend treatment for women's monthly.
You think no one wanted a treatment for 'shell shock' after WWII?
You think there is not a lot of similarity between shell shock and PTSD?
You think no cancer patients had need for pain treatment or nausea treatment in 1950, or you think cannabis was not effective, because of some magical quality it now has?
In 1970 NORML (you would call them the 'legalize it dude') campaign, was looking for any support from any quarter. 10000 hippies for every scientist on their membership.

Jack Herer fought the good fight. Went to his grave with an A for effort.

It is all about money.
Science gets no credit at this late date, only criticism.
The time is right, because the economy is bad.
Like we use to say, 'Pot will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no pot.'
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Look. Cannabis is not a "miracle", but it has use both medically and is not harmful socially. I don't see the reason to look backwards with contempt for just about the ONLY people that were doing anything to "level" the propaganda with the reality. It wasn't the "legalize it dude" campaign that turned the tide, it was medical use.

Medical use has been around since day one.
150 years ago it was a recommend treatment for women's monthly.
You think no one wanted a treatment for 'shell shock' after WWII?
You think there is not a lot of similarity between shell shock and PTSD?
You think no cancer patients had need for pain treatment or nausea treatment in 1950, or you think cannabis was not effective, because of some magical quality it now has?
In 1970 NORML (you would call them the 'legalize it dude') campaign, was looking for any support from any quarter. 10000 hippies for every scientist on their membership.

Jack Herer fought the good fight. Went to his grave with an A for effort.

It is all about money.
Science gets no credit at this late date, only criticism.
The time is right, because the economy is bad.
Like we use to say, 'Pot will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no pot.'

The first part of this rant is not questioned. The second part... Well, look at the progress that has been made to normalize use through the campaign for medical use.

Yes, I am saying the "dude" crowd did NOT turn public opinion. Do they deserve some credit, sure, but that is not where the change came from.

Be upset at the science/medical population all you like. I don't see the reason for the anger, and don't see this as productive.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 3:52:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:17:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/23/2015 1:06:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
I believe I found some information that will help.

This statement is concerning your cited study:

Therefore, according to Dr. Li, "it is important to interpret the prevalence of non-alcohol drugs reported in this study as an indicator of drug use but not necessarily as a measurement of drug impairment. To control the ongoing epidemic of drugged driving, it is imperative to strengthen and expand drug testing and intervention programs for drivers."
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 3:48:11 PM, TBR wrote:

Look. Cannabis is not a "miracle", but it has use both medically and is not harmful socially. I don't see the reason to look backwards with contempt for just about the ONLY people that were doing anything to "level" the propaganda with the reality. It wasn't the "legalize it dude" campaign that turned the tide, it was medical use.

Medical use has been around since day one.
150 years ago it was a recommend treatment for women's monthly.
You think no one wanted a treatment for 'shell shock' after WWII?
You think there is not a lot of similarity between shell shock and PTSD?
You think no cancer patients had need for pain treatment or nausea treatment in 1950, or you think cannabis was not effective, because of some magical quality it now has?
In 1970 NORML (you would call them the 'legalize it dude') campaign, was looking for any support from any quarter. 10000 hippies for every scientist on their membership.

Jack Herer fought the good fight. Went to his grave with an A for effort.

It is all about money.
Science gets no credit at this late date, only criticism.
The time is right, because the economy is bad.
Like we use to say, 'Pot will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no pot.'

The first part of this rant is not questioned. The second part... Well, look at the progress that has been made to normalize use through the campaign for medical use.

Yes, I am saying the "dude" crowd did NOT turn public opinion. Do they deserve some credit, sure, but that is not where the change came from.

Be upset at the science/medical population all you like. I don't see the reason for the anger, and don't see this as productive.

Always the Science Faithful look at any criticism of science as 'anger'. Life is too short for that.
I show weakness in science, the Faithful object, and I object to their objections.
The productivity is in showing that Science is not some perfect truth finding system, that is all sunshine and flowers. Like all human endeavors, it has its weakness and problems. I think this is so obvious as to not even need to be said, and yet, when I point it out, the Faithful object.
And so the need.