Cancer and the drug companies

[bogan]

I'm getting older.

You have no excuse for your laziness.

I seem to be getting older at a rate of one day per day; the difference I see is my time is more valuable than yours, so if anything your excuses are worth-less...

[Katman]

I seem to be getting older at a rate of one day per day; the difference I see is my time is more valuable than yours, so if anything your excuses are worth-less...

:weep:
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
:weep:

. .

. .

. .

. .
:weep:

. .



. .




. .






:weep:

[mashman]

As I have said in another thread, if I work for them, could you please remind them to pay me.

I work for what's best for the patient's I treat or have dealings with. Clearly you don't have any understanding of that type of involvement, so I should refrain from posting further in these threads.

Ach don't be so sensitive, I wasn't "accusing" you. Take a look at that link and tell me that it isn't 100% doable?

I'm sure you're a great doctor, but to be honest I'm kind of stunned that you think I use a Doctor like I use a piece of toilet paper. My involvement is at patient level, and your (doctors plural) concern is always welcome, as is the condescention in regards to what us patients understand about our interactions :shifty:. NOW, I can call a whambulance should you wish :D

All I'm saying is, given that these things are pretty well known and tested on humans, why aren't these sorts of treatments available for Doctors to prescribe? Not blaming doctors for education they don't receive (assumption), and sure, I'm having a crack at big pharma, but scientific process be damned, it's getting in the way in this case. The results are amazing and people are willing to relocate their entire lives to help loved ones, so why not let us have a live trial given that people are willing to put their lives on the line?

Hell, there's a network of growers already available :yes:

[husaberg]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/62799144.jpg

[Katman]

#

You. Are. Wrong.

Is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html

[husaberg]

http://a.u1sf.com/j/3092753/b36785475bf.jpg

[RDJ]

Is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html

No. I prefer to collect evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, the evidence-based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. (And yes, I'm already regretting posting this).

[awa355]

Who needs big Pharma? The world has Kimmy boy :eek5::eek5:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/69562538/north-korea-claims-it-can-cure-mers-and-a-whole-bunch-of-other-things

[Katman]

No. I prefer to collect evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, the evidence-based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. (And yes, I'm already regretting posting this).

Are you saying that you have evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, evidence based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that shows that people have died from 'cannabis overdose'?

[Akzle]

Are you saying that you have evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, evidence based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that shows that people have died from 'cannabis overdose'?

nyarrrrr. 'twas an awesome pic a while back:

"heroin overdose? phone the poison centre
meth overdose? phone the poison centre
agrichemical exposure? phone the poison centre
alcohol poisoning? phone the poison centre

cannabis overdose? phone for pizzas"

[Ulsterkiwi]

Surely by definition an overdose of anything is just that, exposure to levels of said materials/substance over and above what can safely be tolerated?
So people generally do not die or have their health compromised by an "under" or "just about right" dose. :innocent:

[Katman]

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/teen-treated-cannabis-oil-breathing-his-own-in-hospital-6344143

[Edbear]

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/teen-treated-cannabis-oil-breathing-his-own-in-hospital-6344143

I have been following the case with interest and would like to know what Dunn thinks since he approved it.

[Katman]

I have been following the case with interest and would like to know what Dunn thinks since he approved it.

I'm surprised at how little media coverage it's suddenly getting.

[Edbear]

I'm surprised at how little media coverage it's suddenly getting.

Maybe waiting to see how much improvement he gets?

[Katman]

Maybe waiting to see how much improvement he gets?

Well it seems to have achieved more than any other treatment has so far.

[Edbear]

Well it seems to have achieved more than any other treatment has so far.

Yup! Hopefully the Doc is monitoring it to find out what ingredient is affecting what. They have been given a chance that they surely wouldn't want to pass up. This is an international issue that may not have had the same opportunity if they hadn't convinced the Minister to try it.

[ellipsis]

No. I prefer to collect evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, the evidence-based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. (And yes, I'm already regretting posting this).


...don't worry about it...all kinds of different opinions post here...all or none of them are correct...your opinion is about as valuable or as worthless as the rest...shouldn't play in worthless opinion land unless you have a thick skin or maybe you know more than everyone else...endeavouring to prove your opine as the truth is pointless...but carry on...you can join up with bogan and become truly awesome...I will await with baited breath for the truth to roll off your tongue, bottle it and sell it to silly people...

[Akzle]

Surely by definition an overdose of anything is just that, exposure to levels of said materials/substance over and above what can safely be tolerated?

the point being that it's impossible to injest too much cannabis and/or THC.

shit's healthier than water.

[FJRider]

the point being that it's impossible to injest too much cannabis and/or THC.

shit's healthier than water.

I guess why it's legal then .... :cool:


Oh wait ... :rolleyes:

[Laava]

the point being that it's impossible to injest too much cannabis and/or THC.
Wrong. If you smoke so much that you start hallucinating and become psychotic, that's an overdose.
shit's healthier than water.
You can eat as much shit as you want, I will stick to water

You need to school up a bit.

[Katman]

You need to school up a bit.

The use of the word 'overdose' in this context refers back to post #490.

So are you privy to RDJ's "evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, the evidence-based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals" that he seems so sure about (but prefers to keep as a secret)?

[mashman]

You need to school up a bit.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46236000/jpg/_46236376_laundryrepublicsuperman1(2).jpg

[RDJ]

The use of the word 'overdose' in this context refers back to post #490.

So are you privy to RDJ's "evidence-based clinical conclusions from, y'know, the evidence-based clinical trial literature published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals" that he seems so sure about (but prefers to keep as a secret)?

I think you can do your own research yes? It's not secret, it's all public domain info.

[Katman]

I think you can do your own research yes? It's not secret, it's all public domain info.

I'll take that as a "sorry man, I've got nothing".

[bogan]

I'll take that as a "sorry man, I've got nothing".

Irony overload.

[Katman]

Irony overload.

If I state something as a fact then I'm happy to back it up.

[Maha]

If I state something as a fact then I'll back it up.

.....so everything else from you is bullshit unless stated as fact?

[bogan]

If I state something as a fact then I'm happy to back it up.

:laugh: I'm curious as to where exactly it was stated as fact though?

[Katman]

.....so everything else from you is bullshit unless stated as fact?

If I don't state it as fact then it is merely stated as opinion.

[Maha]

If I don't state it as fact then it is merely stated as opinion.

....and if someone disagrees with that opinion (not always fact) then they are a moron because why?

[husaberg]

I'd go with Katmandoo-doo.


Katman 'evidence' = vague generalisations and obscure physical estimates, often gleened from agenda-focussed internet sites.

Some people would call it gossip. But I'm not that nasty.................................

[Katman]

....and if someone disagrees with that opinion (not always fact) then they are a moron because why?

Usually because they struggle to express their opinion in any sort of intelligent form.

[husaberg]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/dd/bc/77/ddbc77b649ad31a7886ec407f9885663.jpg

[Katman]

:laugh: I'm curious as to where exactly it was stated as fact though?

"You.Are.Wrong." comes across quite strongly as stating as fact that there are people who have died from a cannabis overdose.

[bogan]

"You.Are.Wrong." comes across quite strongly as stating as fact that there are people who have died from a cannabis overdose.

No, that's a strong opinion. Like when you say somebody is wrong or a moron or whatever for having an opinion contrary to your own; it is just a strongly worded opinion.

So you're still just trying to put a higher burden of proof onto others to justify your own hypocrisy and stupidity.

[Katman]

No, that's a strong opinion. Like when you say somebody is wrong or a moron or whatever for having an opinion contrary to your own; it is just a strongly worded opinion.


"I think you are wrong" is stating an opinion.

[husaberg]

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1348098417455_2583258.png

No, I'm just wondering how fucking stupid you're prepared to make yourself sound.

You wouldn't recognise fact if it fucked you up the arse.

Debating with fucking morons is becoming tiresome.

What a fucking condescending dickhead.
Fucking moron.

You really are a bitter piece of work, aren't you?

You seem to struggle when it comes to answering questions

Fuck off dickhead, debating with the likes of me is the only exercise your excuse for a fucking brain gets.

I would challenge everyone to sit through this movie with an open mind.(I realise that rules out Bogan and Ed).

[bogan]

"I think you are wrong" is stating an opinion.

And explicitly so, just as 'It's a fact that...' is explicitly stating a fact. Things in between are simply contextually implicit, ie, when you say 'you're a moron' you don't need the 'i think' qualifier because it is obviously an opinion. There endeth the lesson for now as I have work; perhaps do your own research and learn about the glorious nuances of the english language so you can better communicate with others.

EDIT: TAG: husaberg is busting chops :p

[Katman]

And explicitly so, just as 'It's a fact that...' is explicitly stating a fact. Things in between are simply contextually implicit, ie, when you say 'you're a moron' you don't need the 'i think' qualifier because it is obviously an opinion. There endeth the lesson for now as I have work; perhaps do your own research and learn about the glorious nuances of the english language so you can better communicate with others.


http://www.classroomtech.org/credibility/Fact.Opinion.PDF

You're welcome.

[husaberg]

https://marriedgirlinaweirdworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/20110815_narcissist.jpg?w=311&h=197


fact, when people go to such lengths to try to shut someone up it tends to strengthen my belief that that person might be getting too close to the truth.


Fuck me, your comprehension skills need work.

I was suggesting that the references to the three mainstream media agencies (that Ed places such reliance on) count for jack shit.

Now fuck off back to school and get an education.

[Maha]

On and on and on...

What a lovely collective of ......opinions? :rolleyes:

[Katman]

What a lovely collective of ......opinions? :rolleyes:

Like I've said before, you should probably stick to threads that are more suited to your intellect (iykwim).

There's a good boy.

[Maha]

Like I've said before, you should probably stick to threads that are more suited to your intellect (iykwim).

There's a good boy.

What customer is paying for your time on here today then?

[Katman]

What customer is paying for your time on here today then?

Did Anne tell you that motorcycle workshops have to charge out 8 hours per person per day regardless of whether they actually do 8 hours work?

That doesn't sound like a very honest way of doing business Mark.

[husaberg]

https://graceformyheart.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/narcissist8.jpg


Maybe I'm the only one paying attention. :msn-wink:

Can I slag you off on here if you get it wrong?



You're just looking at them all wrong..

Seriously man, you're as fucked in the head.

You have repeatedly shown you are not interested in debating evidence.
You simply attempt to wear down your opponent by talking in circles while not actually saying anything..

So you'll be happy to outline your reasons (or provide evidence) why a shadowy organisation is conspiring .

So why would you feel the need to try to appear superior to anyone who holds a different view of 911 to yours?

No. What's misguided is burying your head in the sand and pretending that there's nothing wrong.

It doesn't surprise me that you'd struggle with the concept of right versus wrong.

Sometimes you're "spectacularly" wrong.

You sound confused.

Fuck me, you've suddenly become a genius.

Wrong way round Oscar.If you said he was a kiddy fiddler it would be up to you to prove it.
The same as when you call 'bullshit' - you should have something to back that claim up.

The greatest irony of this post is that you probably don't even recognise the irony that's just come out of your own gob.



Your superiority complex is rather amusing.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you sound mentally unbalanced.

See, that's what makes you a fucking moron. What the fuck has him being sent to a nuthouse have to do with the theory of what we're discussing?

Fuck you're a sensitive emo, aren't you?.

Your assumption is wrong.

Don't worry cunt - we'll come face to face one day.

You're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?

Fuck, you guys are going to run out of tissues at this rate.

You're jealous.

Go back and find the fucking link for yourself.Lazy cunt.

[Katman]

<img src="http://www.teampwnicorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/OCD-Circle-e1375178709757.png"/>

[husaberg]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/21/2a/a5212a373df0a06f761d3d7e062b8d3b.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/95/9f/03/959f03419b742483612960b5b72754d8.jpg313093

[Maha]

:tugger: :msn-wink:



You should start a special wee thread dedicated to the abuse spewed out from Katmug.

[Katman]

You should start a special wee thread dedicated to the abuse spewed out from Katmug.

You don't get to number one in the red rep stakes by blowing kisses.

DB was the Hare - I'm the Tortoise.

[husaberg]

You should start a special wee thread dedicated to the abuse spewed out from Katmug.


Its called KB.................The katmans hypocrisy should not be limited to single threads..........

You don't get to number one in the red rep stakes just by blowing kisses goats.

But being a narcissistic retard sure helps me keep my title.

[bogan]

http://www.classroomtech.org/credibility/Fact.Opinion.PDF

You're welcome.

:laugh: Old oxford dictionary didn't give you the answer you want then? That definition includes statements that are demonstrably wrong in its definition of facts for fucks sake.

Face it KM, RDJ has served you a steaming pile of your own shit, grin and bear it like a man.

[Katman]

Face it KM, RDJ has served you a steaming pile of your own shit, grin and bear it like a man.

RDJ has done nothing more than flap his gums.......again.

[bogan]

RDJ has done nothing more than flap his gums.......again.

Is that a fact? :killingme

[Katman]

Is that a fact? :killingme

The proof is there - it is fact.

:fullstop:

[bogan]

The proof is there - it is fact.

:fullstop:

Just by your definition though, ie, a demonstrably false one :pinch:

[husaberg]

If I state something as a fact then I'm happy to back it up.

So considering the FBI's involvement in the Newburgh case, their involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing and plenty of other instances where their fingerprints have been left in the pie, is everyone still sticking to the theory that this was nothing more than two pissed off brothers?

Fuck me, your comprehension skills need work.
I was suggesting that the references to the three mainstream media agencies (that Ed places such reliance on) count for jack shit.

Now fuck off back to school and get an education.

Katman 'evidence' = vague generalisations and obscure physical estimates, often gleened from agenda-focussed internet sites.

Some people would call it gossip. But I'm not that nasty:rolleyes::lol::lol::lol:
<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eBoM6MrKWwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Maha]

You don't get to number one in the red rep stakes by blowing DB's foo foo.

DB was the Hare - I'm the Tortoise.

He use to bitch squeal to the mods constantly... only time will tell.

[Katman]

https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-safer-than-aspirin/

Perhaps RDJ might like to comment.

(Unless of course, he's not up to serving me another 'steaming pile of my own shit').

[Ocean1]

https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-safer-than-aspirin/

Perhaps RDJ might like to comment.

(Unless of course, he's not up to serving me another 'steaming pile of my own shit').

As the source can hardly be described as peer reviewed, evidence-based clinical trial literature I'd say he would figure you've just served it to yourself and not bother with what amounts to a lost cause.

[Katman]

As the source can hardly be described as peer reviewed, evidence-based clinical trial literature I'd say he would figure you've just served it to yourself and not bother with what amounts to a lost cause.

Well I can't find the ones he's talking about.

[husaberg]

As the source can hardly be described as peer reviewed, evidence-based clinical trial literature I'd say he would figure you've just served it to yourself and not bother with what amounts to a lost cause.

You have to love the irony.

313134

[FJRider]

https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-safer-than-aspirin/

Perhaps RDJ might like to comment.

(Unless of course, he's not up to serving me another 'steaming pile of my own shit').

Does marijuana actually reduce pain ... or just make you stop caring about the pain because you're stoned ... ??? :scratch:

Sometimes ... I think you're so full of shit ... you don't need another serving ... but thats just MY opinion ...

[Ocean1]

Well I can't find the ones he's talking about.

Ein marin lo l’adam ela m’harhurei libo.

[Katman]

Ein marin lo l’adam ela m’harhurei libo.

He could save time by just letting us in on his secret.

All I'm asking for is the peer-reviewed, evidence based clinical trial literature that proves people have died from cannabis overdose.

[Ocean1]

You have to love the irony.

Love it or hate it: Anais Nin translated the above as "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."

And attributed it to... The Talmud. :shutup:

Edit: incorrectly, I believe, for double bonus irony...

[husaberg]

Love it or hate it: Anais Nin translated the above as "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."

And attributed it to... The Talmud. :shutup:
Some who see themselves as being visionary are actually pretty blind.

[Ocean1]

Some who see themselves as being visionary are actually pretty blind.

Meths will do that. Best stick to single malt for quality visions I've found.

[husaberg]

Meths will do that. Best stick to single malt for quality visions I've found.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4a/65/33/4a6533a3ae193512ff8e94828ded6fcb.jpghttp://content5.videojug.com/de/ded5b1f5-3f5b-4624-d933-ff0008c974e2/how-to-give-your-cat-eye-drops-2.WidePlayer.jpg

[Katman]

*attachments that take extreme ironing to new levels*

Dude, I'm not the one with the closed mind.

[Maha]

Normal transmission should resume today, katmug must be chomping at the bit to get this going again in between tightening the odd bolt here and there.

[bogan]

Dude, I'm not the one with the closed mind.

Shirley, an open minded person would be open to the notion they had a closed mind...

[Maha]

.....:jerry:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

Dude, I'm not the one with the closed mind.

Sounds so reasonable until you read any of your posts that is.

Katmans Rep reply "Fuck off shit-for-brains."

[Maha]

Sounds so reasonable until you read any of your posts that is.

Katmans Rep reply "Fuck off shit-for-brains."


In no particular order..
Fuck off cocksucker.
Fuck off cocksucker.
You'd probably be there to suck my cock.
Fuck off cocksucker.
Game on cocksucker.

I see an unnerving sexually driven pattern here, Steve it ain't going to happen.

[husaberg]

In no particular order..
Fuck off cocksucker.
Fuck off cocksucker.
You'd probably be there to suck my cock.
Fuck off cocksucker.
Game on cocksucker.

I see an unnerving sexually driven pattern here, Steve it ain't going to happen.

Don't go trying to use logic, reason or reality of situations with the Katman. It just confuses him.
Having looked at those comments you got from the katman though I agree he does seem to be repressing some sexual stuff;)

The theme for the red rep he gives me seems to be how he feels he is intellectually superior.
Fuck off shit-for-brains.
I think I'd rather be thought of as a narcissist than a fucking retard.
You truly are a raving irrational fuckwit.
Comprehension's not your strong point, is it?
Your 7 year old probably has more intelligence than you.
Are you trying to set a new benchmark for stupidity?
:tugger:
Sounds like Hitler was pretty much right all along.
You just keep getting dumber and fucking dumber.
Fuck off moron.
Fuck me, you sound retarded.


Although this one is a bit Freudian.
Don't put words in my mouth cuntface.

[Katman]

The theme for the red rep he gives me seems to be how he feels he is intellectually superior.


Well at least you've managed to figure that much out.

[husaberg]

Well at least you've managed to figure that much out.
What that your rep comments are an clear insight into what you fear the most, yes.
That your re comments also are a mask for some repressed desires towards Maha, well pretty obvious.
Just so we can all see how highly intelligent and insightful you are again, Tell us all how that free alternative energy works, you know the one you posted about.:laugh:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels

[Maha]

Although this one is a bit Freudian.
Don't put words in my mouth cuntface.

Clearly if he had to choose between 'words' and 'cock' to be put in his mouth, wee willy flippy floppy would win every time.

[bogan]

Clearly if he had to choose between 'words' and 'cock' to be put in his mouth, wee willy flippy floppy would win every time.

We should all celebrate the recent victory for civil rights in the US as we feel appropriate :eek:

[Maha]

We should all celebrate the recent victory for civil rights in the US as we feel appropriate :eek:

By all singing Rainbow Connection?

[bogan]

By all singing Rainbow Connection?

Sounds more enjoyable than sucking cock anyway.

Not sure if as tasty though...

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc244/paulparkinson/563288_511312632252281_1891880879_n_zps03b32cce.jp g

KM may be along shortly with an open minded (or maybe just open mouthed) opinion.

[FJRider]

Shirley, an open minded person would be open to the notion they had a closed mind...

His name isn't Shirley ... (it's Edwina) ... :shifty:

[husaberg]

His name isn't Shirley ... (it's Edwina) ... :shifty:

I think he now prefers to be addressed as Caitlyn .............

[Maha]

I think he now prefers to be dressed as Caitlyn .............

Fixed it for you.

....and disturbing how he views being better than skidmark and DB in the red rep status as some kind of achievement.

[husaberg]

Fixed it for you.

....and disturbing how he views being better than skidmark and DB in the red rep status as some kind of achievement.

Whats disturbing is he truly feels he knows more about medicine than medical professionals.

[FJRider]

Fixed it for you.

....and disturbing how he views being better than skidmark and DB in the red rep status as some kind of achievement.

Considering how many of his (or should that be her) posts end up in PD ... I'm thinking pink is his/her favourite colour ... :pinch:

[mashman]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b6/b6ba8ab24313f2e362be0da5f86eee7aa9cb1a5bfad56973b1 5ba10f92f4ae95.jpg

[husaberg]

Considering how many of his (or should that be her) posts end up in PD ... I'm thinking pink is his/her favourite colour ... :pinch:

Odd because he was last seen leaving the house dressed in a white bedsheet........
313206



homoerotic imagery supplied by Mashmanonman

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-996kAEHmSCY/UUsYY_WXfkI/AAAAAAAAQmg/0rUuzjkD3D4/s1600/qualifcations.png

[RDJ]

I'll take that as a "sorry man, I've got nothing".

No. You should take that as a statement that there are evidence-based conclusions available, many of them posted online, that confirm you are mistaken in what you consider to be irrefutable 'facts'.

[RDJ]

Whats disturbing is he truly feels he knows more about medicine than medical professionals.

An open mind is actually quite useful. But I am often reminded of what one of my teachers said many years* ago - "an open mind can be good. But, son, don't open it so wide that your brains fall out."

(* Damn! I just calculated that was 37 years ago. How the heck did I get this old so fast :eek::eek::eek:)

[Katman]

No. You should take that as a statement that there are evidence-based conclusions available, many of them posted online, that confirm you are mistaken in what you consider to be irrefutable 'facts'.

But apparently you can't find them.

[bogan]

But apparently you can't find them.

The hypocrisy is just too good, now all we need is a piss-weak bit of backing (maybe a nice youtube of blog) that only confirms it in a very subjective way; and we'll be all done :laugh:

[Katman]

The hypocrisy is just too good, now all we need is a piss-weak bit of backing (maybe a nice youtube of blog) that only confirms it in a very subjective way; and we'll be all done :laugh:

Well some clue as to what he's talking about might help for a start.

[RDJ]

But apparently you can't find them.

Err, no. I just think you should try to access reality yourself from time to time and do these things for yourself. It may help.

[husaberg]

The hypocrisy is just too good, now all we need is a piss-weak bit of backing (maybe a nice youtube of blog) that only confirms it in a very subjective way; and we'll be all done :laugh:

I am picking David Ike will have what Katlyn Jenner wants.


An open mind is actually quite useful. But I am often reminded of what one of my teachers said many years* ago - "an open mind can be good. But, son, don't open it so wide that your brains fall out."

(* Damn! I just calculated that was 37 years ago. How the heck did I get this old so fast :eek::eek::eek:)
Bummer for you though that (in Katlyn Jenners world) any bit of contrary information from a source (no mater how dubious) trumps any medical text books or years of actual experience aye.

[Katman]

Err, no. I just think you should try to access reality yourself from time to time and do these things for yourself. It may help.

I'll take that as a "sorry man, I've got nothing".

Again.

[RDJ]

Do whatever you like. Please. Knock yourself out. In whatever 'reality' you inhabit. As another of my teachers reminded me "in the end, all delusions have a function. Remove them carelessly and many people cannot cope. So think carefully before you do so."

[Katman]

Do whatever you like. Please. Knock yourself out. In whatever 'reality' you inhabit. As another of my teachers reminded me "in the end, all delusions have a function. Remove them carelessly and many people cannot cope. So think carefully before you do so."

So you have no proof whatsoever that anyone has ever died from a cannabis overdose then?

[husaberg]

Well some clue as to what he's talking about might help for a start.


I'll take that as a "sorry man, I've got nothing".

Again.


So you have no proof whatsoever that anyone has ever died from a cannabis overdose then?

This shits far too funny.
<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PibDMGxiyJw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Katman]

This shits far too funny.

Perhaps instead of just sucking his cock you could let us in on RDJ's secret about people dying from cannabis overdoses.

[FJRider]

So you have no proof whatsoever that anyone has ever died from a cannabis overdose then?

Have you proof that NOBODY has ever died while they were stoned ... ??? :blank:

[Katman]

Have you proof that NOBODY has ever died while they were stoned ... ??? :blank:

I haven't claimed that.

On the other hand RDJ seems adament that people have died specifically from a 'cannabis overdose'.

I think he's full of shit.

But of course, he could always post a link to try to prove me wrong.

[husaberg]

Perhaps instead of just sucking his cock you could let us in on RDJ's secret about people dying from cannabis overdoses.

Still with the same old denial shit aye. have tried actually looking for yourself....... maybe you won't find it on grinder so try google instead.

Ps Normal guys don't give each other blowjobs that's homosexuals I can see why you are confused on account of your repressed sexual desires towards Maha, But dude it isn't going to happen.

[Katman]

Still with the same old denial shit aye. have tried actually looking for yourself....... maybe you won't find it on grinder maybe try google insteed.

Clearly you're as mentally impaired as RDJ.

Perhaps you could just provide us with a link instead of just continuing to make a fool of yourself.

[bogan]

Clearly you're as mentally impaired as RDJ.

Perhaps you could provide a link instead of just continuing to make a fool of yourself.

How about you first determine the benchmark criteria. Cos we know you'll backpeddle it an try to blame some other shit. Like does a dude getting high and falling off a building count? How about heart attack cause by psychological effects? or one cause by chemical effects?

[FJRider]

I haven't claimed that.

Have you proof/knowledge of ANY numbers of Cannabis related deaths ... ??? :rolleyes:


On the other hand RDJ seems adament that people have died specifically from a cannabis overdose.

Cannabis overdose would be similar to Acohol overdose ... would you agree .. ??????? and how do you overdose on either ... ?? :scratch:


I think he's full of shit.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual ... and I often might agree with you ... ;)


But of course, he could always post a link to prove me wrong.

I think ... if he could ... he would. :lol:

Wild accusations are one thing ... I personally just throw mud in the hope some sticks ... but that's just me ... ;)

[Katman]

How about you first determine the benchmark criteria. Cos we know you'll backpeddle it an try to blame some other shit. Like does a dude getting high and falling off a building count? How about heart attack cause by psychological effects? or one cause by chemical effects?

Those are examples where cannabis may have contributed to someone's death.

They don't qualify as 'cannabis overdose'.

[husaberg]

Clearly you're as mentally impaired as RDJ.

Perhaps you could just provide us with a link instead of just continuing to make a fool of yourself.

I could try for a thousand years, using a thousand different methods and still be unable to match your innate ability for self denial that you are a total and utter fool.:killingme

[Katman]

I could try for a thousand years, using a thousand different methods and still be unable to match your innate ability for self denial that you are a total and utter fool.:killingme

I'll take that as another "sorry man, I've got nothing".

[husaberg]

How about you first determine the benchmark criteria. Cos we know you'll backpeddle it an try to blame some other shit. Like does a dude getting high and falling off a building count? How about heart attack cause by psychological effects? or one cause by chemical effects?

<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Omfr12DmzFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Don't worry he will try and back out of with some obscure group of like minded agenda biased people say it never occurred.


I'll take that as another "sorry man, I've got nothing".
Considered googling it yet..............

[bogan]

Those are examples where cannabis may have contributed to someone's death.

They don't qualify as 'cannabis overdose'.

Really, enough of the chemical in somebody's system to trigger a heart attack doesn't count as an overdose? guess I was right about that backpedaling then :laugh:

[Katman]

Really, enough of the chemical in somebody's system to trigger a heart attack doesn't count as an overdose? guess I was right about that backpedaling then :laugh:

The problem would have existed in the heart regardless of the cannabis use.

[husaberg]

<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Omfr12DmzFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>........................

[Katman]

Sorry man, I've got nothing.

I thought as much.

[bogan]

The problem would have existed in the heart regardless of the cannabis use.

What problem? Are you saying they would have had a heart attack anyway?

[husaberg]

I thought as much.

Are you really that thick you can't use google and prove us all wrong then.:laugh:

Don't answer that, I think you have already PROVEN IT TRUE

[Katman]

What problem? Are you saying they would have had a heart attack anyway?

Yes, quite possibly.

People who have never touched cannabis have had heart attacks, haven't they?

[Katman]

Are you really that thick you can't use google and prove us all wrong then.

Are you that thick that you can't find anything to prove me wrong?

[husaberg]

Are you that think that you can't find anything to prove me wrong?

I can think, I do think, but if you were keeping up with the discussion I have said you are thick
Oh look..........
313212

[bogan]

Yes, quite possibly.

People who have never touched cannabis have had heart attacks, haven't they?

Is that a yes, or a quite possibly?

I'm wondering now what criteria would you consider as death by overdose? And also wondering if you'd apply the same logic to other things like booze...

[Katman]

Is that a yes, or a quite possibly?

I'm wondering now what criteria would you consider as death by overdose? And also wondering if you'd apply the same logic to other things like booze...

An 'overdose' is suggestive of an incident where the drug taken is the sole cause of death.

As in an overdose of sleeping tablets or a heroin overdose.

[bogan]

An 'overdose' is suggestive of an incident where the drug taken is the sole cause of death.

As in an overdose of sleeping tablets or a heroin overdose.

Like how a heroin overdose can result in a heart attack? :scratch:

Guess that answers if you will be applying the same logic to multiple substances... :facepalm:

[Katman]

Like how a heroin overdose can result in a heart attack? :scratch:

Guess that answers if you will be applying the same logic to multiple substances... :facepalm:

Like I said, if you have evidence of cannabis being responsible for an 'overdose' post it up.

Overwise you're full of shit.

[husaberg]

Like how a heroin overdose can result in a heart attack? :scratch:

Guess that answers if you will be applying the same logic to multiple substances... :facepalm:

You might want to edit that you said logic in a discussion with Katman. It would kind of imply you think it is possible for him to use it.

[bogan]

Like I said, if you have evidence of cannabis being responsible for an 'overdose' post it up.

Overwise you're full of shit.

And like I said, the qualitative measure of what is considered evidence can always be established in advance of it being posted up; to one with an open mind that is, if you have a closed mind you'll want to see the evidence first and backpedal the goal posts out a bit...

You seem to be confused, I'm not the one claiming or opining that an overdose on weed has happened. I'm just showing how close minded you are to the concept.

[Katman]

You seem to be confused, I'm not the one claiming or opining that an overdose on weed has happened.

Neither am I.

All I'm suggesting is that if someone wishes to state as a fact that people have died from 'cannabis overdose' they should be prepared to provide some sort of evidence.

If they can't provide any evidence then it suggests their statement of fact is more likely a load of shit.

[bogan]

Neither am I.

All I'm suggesting is that if someone wishes to state as a fact that people have died from 'cannabis overdose' they should be prepared to provide some sort of evidence.

If they can't provide any evidence then it suggests their statement of fact is more likely a load of shit.

Just where was it stated as fact again?

And just why are you so reluctant to establish the goalposts of what such evidence would entail?

Obviously; yet hilariously ironic coming from you, still.

[Katman]

Just where was it stated as fact again?

Back there a few pages.

[husaberg]

Neither am I.

All I'm suggesting is that if someone wishes to state as a fact that people have died from 'cannabis overdose' they should be prepared to provide some sort of evidence.

If they can't provide any evidence then it suggests their statement of fact is more likely a load of shit.

Gemma Moss Her death was caused by cannabis toxicity, and a coroner recorded a verdict of death by cannabis abuse.
Don't worry they must have been crooked or not possessed your level of intelligence.
Don't worry the UK pro cannabis coalition agrees with you. So you must be right

These German medical researchers must have been paid off as well
http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/

[bogan]

Back there a few pages.

Well, in absence of a link, that would just be your opinion :killingme

[Katman]

Gemma Moss Her death was caused by cannabis toxicity, and a coroner recorded a verdict of death by cannabis abuse.


Well I'm glad some moron decided to pick up on the Gemma Moss story.

The evidence states she smoked half a joint that night.

If you think half a joint is capable of providing a 'cannabis overdose' then you are more retarded than I have ever given you credit for.

[husaberg]

Well I'm glad some moron decided to pick up on the Gemma Moss story.

The evidence states she smoked half a joint that night.

If you think half a joint is capable of providing a 'cannabis overdose' then you are more retarded than I have ever given you credit for.

I don't need to because I was not the coroner who declared her death who had all the information and seeing as you are not either a coroner or a medical professional, in absence of you proving your superior knowledge, that in spite of some serious outcry from the British pro cannabis lobby it is a fact.
Also so is the German medical study, just because they do not suit your position. Does not make them bullshit. it only makes your argument that no one has ever died as a result of Cannabis consumption bullshit.

[Katman]

These German medical researchers must have been paid off as well
http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/

Did you miss this bit?

'Autopsies found that younger had a serious undetected heart problem....'

[RDJ]

So you have no proof whatsoever that anyone has ever died from a cannabis overdose then?

I guess you need help. Try: Colorado, Coachella, double-figure fatalities.

Now, many other drugs have lethal side effects so we do not / should not say that only perfectly safe drugs should be legal. Any drug with an effect has side-effects. But to claim that marijuana is uniquely free of lethal effects when freely available, is lethally wrong.

[RDJ]

I haven't claimed that.

On the other hand RDJ seems adament that people have died specifically from a 'cannabis overdose'.

I think he's full of shit.

But of course, he could always post a link to try to prove me wrong.

I'm not primarily interested in proving you wrong. (And anyway that's a really low-threshold-ambition). I'm primarily interested in facts that would alter prescribing practices. Either in favor of more use of a useful drug, or less use of a dangerous drug.

[husaberg]

Did you miss this bit?

'Autopsies found that younger had a serious undetected heart problem....'
<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eBoM6MrKWwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes as as I stated the medical report that attributed the cause of death was privy to all the information and more and decided on the cause of death. Not you. So each shit retard.

[Katman]

I guess you need help. Try: Colorado, Coachella, double-figure fatalities.

Are you talking about this?

http://www.westword.com/news/sorry-dare-pot-candies-didnt-really-kill-9-in-colorado-12-at-coachella-671418

[RDJ]

Are you talking about this?

http://www.westword.com/news/sorry-dare-pot-candies-didnt-really-kill-9-in-colorado-12-at-coachella-671418

No. I'm looking at toxicology reports, not the exudates from hipsters stranded in their moms' basements.

[Katman]

No. I'm looking at toxicology reports.....

Got a link?

[FJRider]

Got a link?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-have-met-a-few-wankers-in-my-time-but-boy-your-first-class/215589941797479

[Katman]

http://topekasnews.com/edible-marijuana-candies-kill-9-colorado-12-coachella/

:facepalm:

It appears that there are others out there as retarded as RDJ.

[98tls]

Amazing to think that 1 joint gets 4 chicks pregnant....who the fuck needs men eh.

[Katman]

Amazing to think that 1 joint gets 4 chicks pregnant....who the fuck needs men eh.

It gets even better.

http://topekasnews.com/krokodil-marijuana-sweeps-across-colorado-residents-eating-streets/

[98tls]

Best we stay in the shed then...http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a92/tlme/uploadimagedisplay_zpss9p0atmx.jpg (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/tlme/media/uploadimagedisplay_zpss9p0atmx.jpg.html)

[bogan]

http://topekasnews.com/edible-marijuana-candies-kill-9-colorado-12-coachella/

:facepalm:

It appears that there are others out there as retarded as RDJ.

I'm going to take pity on you since you continue to be trolled the fuck out of. Have you considered he gave it to you as a starting point as a test or something like that? As before, nowhere has he factually stated that in that case (or another) that weed overdose was the sole cause of death and not paired with any other mitigating circumstance including but not limited to the individual having a heart but not taking heroin.

Perhaps you feel like you passed the test enough to set down some uniform goalposts to benchmark what evidence you'd require?

[Katman]

I'm going to take pity on you since you continue to be trolled the fuck out of. Have you considered he gave it to you as a starting point as a test or something like that? As before, nowhere has he factually stated that in that case (or another) that weed overdose was the sole cause of death and not paired with any other mitigating circumstance including but not limited to the individual having a heart but not taking heroin.

Perhaps you feel like you passed the test enough to set down some uniform goalposts to benchmark what evidence you'd require?

Let me spell it out for you.

I said "no-one has ever died of a cannabis overdose".

RDJ said "You.Are.Wrong."

As yet he hasn't given any evidence that I am wrong.

Understand now?

[bogan]

Let me spell it out for you.

I said "no-one has ever died of a cannabis overdose".

RDJ said "You.Are.Wrong."

As yet he hasn't given any evidence that I am wrong.

Understand now?

You haven't given any evidence you are right though.

Shirley the burden of proof goes in chronological order?

Although I'm mindful it is harder to prove a negative, I think some compromise should be made due to your fallacy of claiming it; perhaps you should describe what sort of evidence you require? So far I'm getting much different criteria depending on what substance is overdosed upon, which is obviously showing that yes, you are wrong.

[Katman]

You haven't given any evidence you are right though.


You could start here.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Overdose#sthash.fSNHvWxw.dpbs

[bogan]

You could start here.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Overdose#sthash.fSNHvWxw.dpbs

You could start by responding to the whole of my post.

You might have noted that link you just provided still left room for the likelihood (albeit tiny) that a person could od on cannabis. So your evidence does not fully back your statement. Nor is it possible to provide any tbh, hence the rest of my post.

[husaberg]

You could start by responding to the whole of my post.

You might have noted that link you just provided still left room for the likelihood (albeit tiny) that a person could od on cannabis. So your evidence does not fully back your statement. Nor is it possible to provide any tbh, hence the rest of my post.


Katman 'evidence' = vague generalisations and obscure physical estimates, often gleened from agenda-focussed internet sites.

Some people would call it gossip. But I'm not that nasty


The proof is there - it is fact.

:fullstop:.........................
It is a fact that deaths have been attributed to cannabis by a coroner.

[Katman]

You could start by responding to the whole of my post.

You might have noted that link you just provided still left room for the likelihood (albeit tiny) that a person could od on cannabis. So your evidence does not fully back your statement. Nor is it possible to provide any tbh, hence the rest of my post.

Did you miss this bit?

2. An exhaustive search of the literature finds no deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

[husaberg]

Did you miss this bit?

2. An exhaustive search of the literature finds no deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

A pro cannabis websites extensive search............
Yet you ignore coroners findings when they don't suit you............
You ignore scientific research when it does not suit you.

[bogan]

Did you miss this bit?

2. An exhaustive search of the literature finds no deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

Not all deaths are recorded in literature you know. Hence the words 'has not been shown to' instead of 'has never'

Still struggling to define what evidence for overdose entails I see; not sure you'll pass rdj's tests with that attitude :lol:

[RDJ]

http://topekasnews.com/edible-marijuana-candies-kill-9-colorado-12-coachella/

:facepalm:

It appears that there are others out there as retarded as RDJ.

Well, Katman, since intelligence is distributed in a bell-shaped curve and peaks at exactly the average, then indeed, yes, you are correct.

Interesting comment in your rep allocation - I had to chuckle. Although if the sheer poetry of your discourse and the colorful words you string together on this forum are how you operate in your business, I'm guessing this explains why you have so much time on your hands to research invective, urban mythology and fantastical conspiracies...

[Katman]

Heart-breaking news but Alex Renton passed away this evening.

[RDJ]

And I hope that sad fact will not be used in service of anyone's agenda. R.I.P Alex.

[husaberg]

http://media.tedparsnips.com/waitforit-480x176.jpg

[Edbear]

And I hope that sad fact will not be used in service of anyone's agenda. R.I.P Alex.

You can be sure it will be, by someone. It was nice to know he was able to interact with his family, though, and if that's all it took, it was worth the try.

[RDJ]

Throwing Katman some Katnip...

Abstract of a paper published in a Clinical Toxicology Journal 2009
INTRODUCTION:
Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide. As societies reconsider the legal status of cannabis, policy makers and clinicians require sound knowledge of the acute and chronic effects of cannabis. This review focuses on the latter.
METHODS:
A systematic review of Medline, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar using the search terms "cannabis," "marijuana," "marihuana," "toxicity," "complications," and "mechanisms" identified 5,198 papers. This list was screened by hand, and papers describing mechanisms and those published in more recent years were chosen preferentially for inclusion in this review.
FINDINGS:
There is evidence of psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, and bone toxicity associated with chronic cannabis use. Cannabis has now been implicated in the etiology of many major long-term psychiatric conditions including depression, anxiety, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and an amotivational state. Respiratory conditions linked with cannabis include reduced lung density, lung cysts, and chronic bronchitis. Cannabis has been linked in a dose-dependent manner with elevated rates of myocardial infarction and cardiac arrythmias. It is known to affect bone metabolism and also has teratogenic effects on the developing brain following perinatal exposure. Cannabis has been linked to cancers at eight sites, including children after in utero maternal exposure, and multiple molecular pathways to oncogenesis exist.
CONCLUSION:
Chronic cannabis use is associated with psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, and bone effects. It also has oncogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects all of which depend upon dose and duration of use.

Part Deux; acute effects: an exercise for the student.

[Katman]

I don't see any mention of 'cannabis overdose' in there though.

[RDJ]

Of course you don't.

[Katman]

Of course you don't.

Well if that's suppose to mean that it's there if you look hard enough, perhaps you could help point it out - cos I still can't find it.

[husaberg]

Well if that's suppose to mean that it's there if you look hard enough, perhaps you could help point it out - cos I still can't find it.

It means you can't see what is in front of you, As you have a obvious propensity to deny all things that don't suit your agenda, You demonstrate this repeatedly no mater how blatantly obvious things are.:killingme
Its actually one of your few consistencies (other than your belief that everything is a conspiracy of course)
But don't stop yet. Your continued belligerence does provide amusement.

[sugilite]

Of course you don't.


It means you can't see what is in front of you, As you have a obvious propensity to deny all things that don't suit your agenda, You demonstrate this repeatedly no mater how blatantly obvious things are.:killingme
Its actually one of your few consistencies (other than your belief that everything is a conspiracy of course)
But don't stop yet. Your continued belligerence does provide amusement.

Ummm, Lads - Katman does not appear to be saying there are no detrimental aspects of cannabis use What he is saying is he believes there are no cases of anyone dying from an overdose of cannabis.
An overdose generally means too much of a single dose, not the cumulative effect of many, many doses.

[Katman]

Ummm, Lads - Katman does not appear to be saying there are no detrimental aspects of cannabis use What he is saying is he believes there are no cases of anyone dying from an overdose of cannabis.
An overdose generally means too much of a single dose, not the cumulative effect of many, many doses.

It's not rocket surgery, is it?

[husaberg]

All I'm asking for is the peer-reviewed, evidence based clinical trial literature that proves people have died from cannabis overdose.

So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?

Ummm, Lads - Katman does not appear to be saying there are no detrimental aspects of cannabis use What he is saying is he believes there are no cases of anyone dying from an overdose of cannabis.
An overdose generally means too much of a single dose, not the cumulative effect of many, many doses.
..........................................

[sugilite]

..........................................
He says overdose, not overuse.
:rolleyes:

[Katman]

He says overdose, not overuse.
:rolleyes:

Husaberk doesn't read too good.

[husaberg]

Husaberk doesn't read too good.


He says overdose, not overuse.
:rolleyes:


Pardon?...............

So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?

[Katman]

Pardon?...............

Dude, you don't understand basic English at the best of times so I don't expect you to recognise facetiousness when it's used.

[husaberg]

I don't expect you to recognise facetiousness when it's used.
..............................
<iframe width="554" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Omfr12DmzFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[sugilite]

Pardon?...............

This is the text you used in the katman quote YOU used
" Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post

All I'm asking for is the peer-reviewed, evidence based clinical trial literature that proves people have died from cannabis overdose."

As you can see, he used the word OVERDOSE as against "Overuse" which is the context you are using in your replies.
I'm wondering if you are as stupid as you are making out, or just trolling.

[RDJ]

Ummm, Lads - Katman does not appear to be saying there are no detrimental aspects of cannabis use What he is saying is he believes there are no cases of anyone dying from an overdose of cannabis.
An overdose generally means too much of a single dose, not the cumulative effect of many, many doses.

You are quite correct. Of course, implausible deniability is also a psychologically protective strategy which I believe the K-man employs on a regular basis. The primary difficulty here is, that chronic use at apparently safe doses leads to a considerable amount of harm. There are other papers published which point out the fact that acute overdose, leads to lethal harm.

To reiterate for the Cheap Seats, this is in common with other normally prescribed medicines. But should we want to add cannabis to the list of normally prescribed medicines, we need to make sure that they are not go to harm people avoidably; and they are not going to harm people excessively compared to other prescribed medicines. This is where the Katman hypothesis fails, miserably.

We have options for other medicines that work "more safely" than the un-regulated use of cannabinoids.

I am all for people using what works for them. What I'd prefer to avoid is the unintended consequences of lackadaisical, agenda-driven, stupidly-recommended use of drugs that do not work even as well as what is already available. There rests the case.

But I know, someone will object on the basis that I am being paid off by the Global, Zionist, Pharmaceutical Industry Conspiracy. If only. If that is what is happening, where is my pay cheque :weep: :cool: :baby: :msn-wink: :niceone:

[sugilite]

The primary difficulty here is, that chronic use at apparently safe doses leads to a considerable amount of harm. There are other papers published which point out the fact that acute overdose, leads to lethal harm.

I have very little to disagree with anything you say. It is pretty much possible to overdose on just about anything and cause considerable harm, even water.


We have options for other medicines that work "more safely" than the un-regulated use of cannabinoids.
Could well be, but prescription drugs are abused too. Maybe if the powers that be encouraged researched cannabinoid based medicine be developed and released, many would not feel the need for un-regulated use.


What I'd prefer to avoid is the unintended consequences of lackadaisical, agenda-driven, stupidly-recommended use of drugs that do not work even as well as what is already available.
Funny you should mention that, I feel cannabis has been the victim of petroleum, cotton, tobacco, alcohol and possibly pharmaceutical self interest driven shenanigans for way, way to long.

[Katman]

To reiterate for the Cheap Seats, this is in common with other normally prescribed medicines. But should we want to add cannabis to the list of normally prescribed medicines, we need to make sure that they are not go to harm people avoidably; and they are not going to harm people excessively compared to other prescribed medicines. This is where the Katman hypothesis fails, miserably.


As was shown in the link I posted a few pages ago, cannabis has been proven to be of far less harm than asprin.

[bogan]

As was shown in the link I posted a few pages ago, cannabis has been proven to be of far less harm than asprin.

In what context though, acute overdose?

[Katman]

In what context though, acute overdose?

Go back and read the link.

Dumb fuck.

[bogan]

Go back and read the link.

Dumb fuck.

Why, did you not understand it well enough to answer that simple question?

[RDJ]

The fact that just about anything, and absolutely including already legally prescribed drugs, can result in serious harm, is absolutely true. What I have always found difficult to understand, is that with a raft of legally prescribed drugs which can already do serious harm, including fatal harm, already on the books, people want to add more to that list - that is difficult to see as anything other than making prescribing more dangerous than it needs to be.

A lot of people say "if alcohol was a new drug, the authorities would want to forbid it". Yes, that is correct. But it is not a new drug. Why do we want to add a new drug = cannabis to the list of dangerous substances that kill and injure our loved ones and our friends?

I fear that Katman and his ilk want to legalise cannabis in uncontrolled quantities, precisely because they want to exercise a legislative power they wish to see as their fantasy, realised. That is not going to help people. It will kill some people. There needs to be some limits on one's ego.

[bogan]

I fear that Katman and his ilk want to legalise cannabis in uncontrolled quantities, precisely because they want to exercise a legislative power they wish to see as their fantasy, realised. That is not going to help people. It will kill some people. There needs to be some limits on one's ego.

But on the other hand, is it adding a thing, or replacing one? Would people not get stoned instead of drunk, with being stoned arguably the less dangerous alternative.

[husaberg]

This is the text you used in the katman quote YOU used
" Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post

All I'm asking for is the peer-reviewed, evidence based clinical trial literature that proves people have died from cannabis overdose."

As you can see, he used the word OVERDOSE as against "Overuse" which is the context you are using in your replies.
I'm wondering if you are as stupid as you are making out, or just trolling.

Now you are just trying to change what his words mean..

So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?
Maybe he meant from albatross attacks

[mashman]

The fact that just about anything, and absolutely including already legally prescribed drugs, can result in serious harm, is absolutely true. What I have always found difficult to understand, is that with a raft of legally prescribed drugs which can already do serious harm, including fatal harm, already on the books, people want to add more to that list - that is difficult to see as anything other than making prescribing more dangerous than it needs to be.

A lot of people say "if alcohol was a new drug, the authorities would want to forbid it". Yes, that is correct. But it is not a new drug. Why do we want to add a new drug = cannabis to the list of dangerous substances that kill and injure our loved ones and our friends?

I fear that Katman and his ilk want to legalise cannabis in uncontrolled quantities, precisely because they want to exercise a legislative power they wish to see as their fantasy, realised. That is not going to help people. It will kill some people. There needs to be some limits on one's ego.

Evidence from Colorado and Portugal states otherwise.

[RDJ]

But on the other hand, is it adding a thing, or replacing one? Would people not get stoned instead of drunk, with being stoned arguably the less dangerous alternative.

The facts are not really clear. There is a lot of evidence that being stoned on cannabis is as dangerous for other road users, as being drunk. But being stoned is not uniquely dangerous. Being drunk is also lethal.

For an objective perspective this IMO is a reasonably objective assessment:

http://www.ibtimes.com/driving-high-bad-driving-drunk-4-ways-marijuana-can-affect-motor-function-1732863

The Short Answer: Both are Dangerous.

[Katman]

What I have always found difficult to understand, is that with a raft of legally prescribed drugs which can already do serious harm, including fatal harm, already on the books, people want to add more to that list - that is difficult to see as anything other than making prescribing more dangerous than it needs to be.

You are dredging new depths of stupidity.

Cannabis is well known to be considerably less harmful than most of the pharmaceutical drugs currently available.

[sugilite]

Now you are just trying to change what his words mean..

Ahh, you are just a troll.

[RDJ]

Regardless of what we opinionate - the results will speak for themselves. My colleagues and I will do our best for the Drunk as well as the Stoned. The Outcomes of that will still not please ya'll... Reality is Resistant to Katman-Fantasies.

[Katman]

Ahh, you are just a troll.

No, he actually is fucking stupid.

[RDJ]

You are dredging new depths of stupidity.

Cannabis is well known to be considerably less harmful than most of the pharmaceutical drugs currently available.

Dredging new Depths? My mum (R.I.P. mum) would be proud. I do not have any rep as a medical innovator... I tend to follow established evidence-based medical procedures.

[RDJ]

But on the other hand, is it adding a thing, or replacing one? Would people not get stoned instead of drunk, with being stoned arguably the less dangerous alternative.

These days in the ER, it's often not either/or, it is - anecdotally as well as based on laboratory toxicology - a combination of both. But feel free to dismiss my regular repetitive professional experience as bigoted :Playnice: because that's just how you SJW's roll...

[husaberg]

No, he actually is fucking stupid.


So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?
You said this but you clearly meant something else then? Yeah everyone else but you are just plain stupid. That's why we don't understand all your conspiracies and free energy aye:not:

[RDJ]

Evidence from Colorado and Portugal states otherwise.

Err. no. No it does not. You need to do more than just sample the statistics that give the result you want. Drug effects are geometric not additive.

[bogan]

The facts are not really clear. There is a lot of evidence that being stoned on cannabis is as dangerous for other road users, as being drunk. But being stoned is not uniquely dangerous. Being drunk is also lethal.

For an objective perspective this IMO is a reasonably objective assessment:

http://www.ibtimes.com/driving-high-bad-driving-drunk-4-ways-marijuana-can-affect-motor-function-1732863

The Short Answer: Both are Dangerous.

Yeh I'm not debating that aspect of it, but what about the motivation to get behind the wheel in the first place, which substance is the greater risk for that?

[Katman]

The argument that says "let's not reform our cannabis laws because we'll have people driving stoned" is laughable.

(One could argue that a stoned driver is probably safer than a pissed driver, but I won't go there).

Reforming our cannabis laws is not going to result in more cannabis users - or in people who suddenly think it's ok to drive stoned.

Driving while stoned would still be treated in the same manner that driving while pissed is.

The reality is that we have synthetic cannabis products out there that probably don't fall into the category of illegal vehicular use.

[RDJ]

Yeh I'm not debating that aspect of it, but what about the motivation to get behind the wheel in the first place, which substance is the greater risk for that?

A good point. I really haven't read and analysed enough to comment. I would simply say, that as substance A is already a known risk, we should not add to the roadgoing driving community, the additional risk of the effects of substance B. Were it up to me (which it clearly is not) then based on the evidentially lethal effects of both cannabis and alcohol I would require drivers to have zero levels of both... But again, I'm not in charge :rolleyes: for which many readers, especially Katman and Yokel, are grateful I'm sure. :msn-wink:

[mashman]

Err. no. No it does not. You need to do more than just sample the statistics that give the result you want. Drug effects are geometric not additive.

Sample statistics? This is an entire country over the space of 15ish years. It's a positive result, isn't that the result you want too? Cannabis has been used by society for millennia, and in numbers that are more than just a sample statistic. I think the verdict is in... and given that there's a large and willing population, I'm sure the medical profession will benefit with subjects to poke and prod. $50 will buy you a stoner for a week.

[sugilite]

Yeh I'm not debating that aspect of it, but what about the motivation to get behind the wheel in the first place, which substance is the greater risk for that?

I think most anecdotal evidence points to alcohol turns most into wanna be F1 racers and the other users into Ena Sharples
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Ena_Sharples_1980.jpg/200px-Ena_Sharples_1980.jpg

[bogan]

A good point. I really haven't read and analysed enough to comment. I would simply say, that as substance A is already a known risk, we should not add to the roadgoing driving community, the additional risk of the effects of substance B. Were it up to me (which it clearly is not) then based on the evidentially lethal effects of both cannabis and alcohol I would require drivers to have zero levels of both... But again, I'm not in charge :rolleyes: for which many readers, especially Katman and Yokel, are grateful I'm sure. :msn-wink:

But could substance B be the lesser of those two evils? In my experience people don't tend to do one thing on one night etc. It'll be a cocktail on the one night; less booze, more weed, is that a safer cocktail?

[RDJ]

Sample statistics? This is an entire country over the space of 15ish years. It's a positive result, isn't that the result you want too? Cannabis has been used by society for millennia, and in numbers that are more than just a sample statistic. I think the verdict is in... and given that there's a large and willing population, I'm sure the medical profession will benefit with subjects to poke and prod. $50 will buy you a stoner for a week.


Yeah, y'know, go ahead and see how that works out for people on the roads. To have another growing population of non-alcohol-yet-still-drug-addicted drivers on the roads while functionally disabled in terms of reaction times, interaction with reality, and speed of reflexes. This is not going to work out well. I just hope it is not one of your disciples that hits my family or me...

[Katman]

But could substance B be the lesser of those two evils? In my experience people don't tend to do one thing on one night etc. It'll be a cocktail on the one night; less booze, more weed, is that a safer cocktail?

Cannabis law reform will not change user habits in the slightest.

If someone wants to try cannabis now it is readily available.

For anyone to suggest that suddenly more people will try it simply because it's legal is, once again, laughable.

And even if they did - who fucking cares? As long as their actions don't adversely impact on others then it is nobody else's business.

[mashman]

Yeah, y'know, go ahead and see how that works out for people on the roads. To have another growing population of non-alcohol-yet-still-drug-addicted drivers on the roads while functionally disabled in terms of reaction times, interaction with reality, and speed of reflexes. This is not going to work out well. I just hope it is not one of your disciples that hits my family or me...

My point is. The people who are willing to get stoned and then drive have likely been doing so for a very long time. Likely since before you were born. It's another thing that's happened every day since the horse was invented. You really reckon the stats are gonna change? It will still be illegal to smoker n drive won't it? I would still have the choice as to whether I got on the road in either condition? Sorry to let you in on these sorts of things, these really well known open secrets, but dude, you are surrounded by the fear you're peddling every day. Hope you sleep well tonight.

[RDJ]

My point is. The people who are willing to get stoned and then drive have likely been doing so for a very long time. Likely since before you were born. It's another thing that's happened every day since the horse was invented. You really reckon the stats are gonna change? It will still be illegal to smoker n drive won't it? I would still have the choice as to whether I got on the road in either condition? Sorry to let you in on these sorts of things really well known open secrets, but dude, you are surrounded by the fear you're peddling every day. Hope you sleep well tonight.

If you are sincere, thank you for your good wishes, but am working overnight :-) and actually, I doubt that the current population of cannabis smokers was driving before I was born, I was born quite a long time ago. But I appreciate the thought if it was well intended. I try not to peddle fear, just reality. I know the line between reality and the fear is blurred in later generations!

[bogan]

Cannabis law reform will not change user habits in the slightest.

If someone wants to try cannabis now it is readily available.

For anyone to suggest that suddenly more people will try it simply because it's legal is, once again, laughable.

And even if they did - who fucking cares? As long as their actions don't adversely impact on others then it is nobody else's business.

Depends on what circles you run in I guess.

More people would certainly try it if it were legal. The suddenality of that, is of little relevance.

[Katman]

More people would certainly try it if it were legal. The suddenality of that, is of little relevance.

I think you're absolutely wrong - it's already readily available for anyone who is remotely interested in trying it.

[bogan]

I think you're absolutely wrong - it's already readily available for anyone who is remotely interested in trying it.

Not in some circles, and remote interest for some is dependent on its legal state. Are you seriously suggesting legalisation wouldn't increase it useage?

[Katman]

Are you seriously suggesting legalisation wouldn't increase it useage?

No, I don't believe it would.

Has Portugal or any other country that has reformed it's law shown a sudden increase in users?

[RDJ]

Of course.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27212493/marijuana-use-increases-colorado-according-new-federal-survey

If you seriously expected anything different then you need to check your connections with the Real World.

[mashman]

If you are sincere, thank you for your good wishes, but am working overnight :-) and actually, I doubt that the current population of cannabis smokers was driving before I was born, I was born quite a long time ago. But I appreciate the thought if it was well intended. I try not to peddle fear, just reality. I know the line between reality and the fear is blurred in later generations!

I am sincere. As you know, people get hit by drunk and drugged drivers. The legal status doesn't really change that. lol@age... nah, you're just stuck in a different age :shifty: I know you weren't trying to pedal fear, you're relying on professional evidence... so that's being taken care of for you :shifty: :killingme As for the blur... nah, that's ours... "we" passed it on to those later generations, but that's another story. I see it as, as long as you're awake, then that 1 car on the road should miss you... but there ain't no guarantees. I do wish you safe though.

[RDJ]

I am sincere. As you know, people get hit by drunk and drugged drivers. The legal status doesn't really change that. lol@age... nah, you're just stuck in a different age :shifty: I know you weren't trying to pedal fear, you're relying on professional evidence... so that's being taken care of for you :shifty: :killingme As for the blur... nah, that's ours... "we" passed it on to those later generations, but that's another story. I see it as, as long as you're awake, then that 1 car on the road should miss you... but there ain't no guarantees. I do wish you safe though.

Thanks mashman. I'm riding to work with Clearwater driving lights on the front of the bike and a fluoro vest with reflective 2x nastygrams "Hang Up and Drive!" & "Can You See Me Now!" sewn on...
:banana:
so I hope i am easily seen tonight!

[mashman]

Not in some circles, and remote interest for some is dependent on its legal state. Are you seriously suggesting legalisation wouldn't increase it useage?

True. No one is ever out unless there's a "shortage"... and if it were legal there would be plenty resources available to ensure supply. But how many really go without during a "shortage"? Statistically relevant or outliers? Either way, guessing gets us not closer to knowing.

[bogan]

No, I don't believe it would.

Has Portugal or any other country that has reformed it's law shown a sudden increase in users?

Colorado and Washington State have, around 20%.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27212493/marijuana-use-increases-colorado-according-new-federal-survey

[RDJ]

I'm wondering if Katman actually exists or if he is a Neuromancer-entity / William Gibson-like construct - surely no-one who can function in society receiving feedback from daily reality could be so consistently wrong...

[Katman]

Colorado and Washington State have, around 20%.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27212493/marijuana-use-increases-colorado-according-new-federal-survey

Or maybe you read this sentence 'When asked, roughly one out of every eight Colorado residents over the age of 12 reported using marijuana in the previous month' and jumped to a conclusion.

If one out of every eight Colorado residents reported using marijuana once it was made legal, when only one out of every ten residents admitted the same when it was illegal, it could simply be down to the fact that people are more prepared to be honest once they know they're not breaking the law.

[bogan]

Or maybe you read this sentence 'When asked, roughly one out of every eight Colorado residents over the age of 12 reported using marijuana in the previous month' and jumped to a conclusion.

If one out of every eight Colorado residents reported using marijuana once it was made legal, when only one out of every ten residents admitted the same when it was illegal, it could simply be the down to the fact that people are more prepared to be honest once they know they're not breaking the law.


Evidence is.



...always up for debate.

They could have ensured the survey results were anonymous; like pretty much every survey into illicit substance use ever.

But hey, I've put up some evidence for my point, you think you've found a hole in it, now follow through and find some evidence for that, and your point.

[Katman]

They could have ensured the survey results were anonymous; like pretty much every survey into illicit substance use ever.


Have you got extensive knowledge of how surveys into illicit substance use are carried out?

They might just have easily conducted a face to face street poll.

[husaberg]

Is this still the Cancer drug thread, Is recreational drugs now a cure for Cancer? or is it just a pulpit to preach drug reforms from under the guise of Medicinal

Don't worry its Katman so it will be pushing another agenda of his own:clap:

[bogan]

Have you got extensive knowledge of how surveys into illicit substance use are carried out?

They might just have easily conducted a face to face street poll.

No, but the NSDUH offers transparency on this issue.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/SAMHDA/studies/35509

Specifically:

To protect the privacy of respondents, all variables that could be used to identify individuals have been encrypted or collapsed in the public use file. To further ensure respondent confidentiality, the data producer used data substitution and deletion of state identifiers and a subsample of records in the creation of the public use file.

Now as I said evidence is always up for discussion and I'd welcome evidence you can put forward to counter that which I have...

[Katman]

Now as I said evidence is always up for discussion and I'd welcome evidence you can put forward to counter that which I have...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

[bogan]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Decline of drug abuse is a completely logical outcome of its legalisation, especially with the measures portugal could put in place due to its legalisation. However, drug abuse is not a measure of drug use; or are you suggesting the usage would have fallen by half as well?

The other point to note, is which demographic best matches our own, US or portugal?

[Katman]

Decline of drug abuse is a completely logical outcome of its legalisation, especially with the measures portugal could put in place due to its legalisation. However, drug abuse is not a measure of drug use; or are you suggesting the usage would have fallen by half as well?

Well I don't see anything suggesting that usage has increased.

[bogan]

Well I don't see anything suggesting that usage has increased.

Neither do I. But then I'm not the one looking, since I've shown some evidence as to drug usage rates to support my conclusion, have you?

[sugilite]

Colorado and Washington State have, around 20%.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27212493/marijuana-use-increases-colorado-according-new-federal-survey

These facts seem to have more solid references....
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US#sthash.s3uvjzjv.dpbs

[Katman]

These facts seem to have more solid references....
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US#sthash.s3uvjzjv.dpbs

Solid references?

It appears Bogan is no longer interested.

[husaberg]

Might have something to do with the whole reason of the thread (you know the title kind of says it and all) being hi-jacked to push some different agenda altogether who knows:not:
But shit that would be transparent...................

[bogan]

Solid references?

It appears Bogan is no longer interested.

Au ciontraire, he did not supply for what those solid references were in aid of. They do not appear to encompass a period of legislation change as we were discussing. The debating style of 'here, go read this thing that I will not describe with any specificity what is in it or how it relates to the topic at hand...' is quite pathetic.

How are your efforts to find some evidence to support your conclusion that "Cannabis law reform will not change user habits in the slightest." "For anyone to suggest that suddenly more people will try it simply because it's legal is, once again, laughable." going?

Because any reasonable person can see the evidence we put up from US shows that is very much a possibility, even your own links from Portugal show it changes user habits for the better.

[sugilite]

Au ciontraire, he did not supply for what those solid references were in aid of. They do not appear to encompass a period of legislation change as we were discussing. The debating style of 'here, go read this thing that I will not describe with any specificity what is in it or how it relates to the topic at hand...' is quite pathetic.

OK, fair enough. As it turns out finding any reports stating evidence one way or another as to whether cannabis use goes up or down after decriminalization is very challenging to find. (I failed)
I did find the following charts and further details for those that want to go to the page linked below - (purely optional - lest I be deemed being pathetic for sending people to webpages to do some reading).

Prevalence of Drug Use In The Previous Month Among Secondary Students (12-18 Years Old) In The Netherlands - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/The+Netherlands#Prevalence

http://majestic-quartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/lifetime.jpg

http://majestic-quartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/last-month.jpg

What these charts tell lay person me, is that drug use goes up and down by quite dramatic amounts independent of current/changing drug laws. So it is my opinion the Colorado reports too will be next to useless.

So I will delve into my anecdotal experience as a once teenager and father of 4, tell a teenager not to do something, and guess what, it is like putting tomato sauce on hot chips, makes them a whole lot more attractive. So they will go out of their way to do it. And for the goody two shoes that do not will probably have a crack at smoking weed if it is legalized/decriminalized. So for a time numbers will spike with "tryer outers", and then over time may subside with those that simply do not find the effect to their liking. - But all the while the overall numbers will go up and down any way due to other multiple unknown factors that simply cannot ever be quantified.

[Katman]

And furthermore, I come back to the idea (see, I didn't use the word 'fact') that people are quite likely to be more honest about illicit drug use once the drug is actually not illicit anymore.

How one could provide evidence for that speculation is anyone's guess.

[husaberg]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J_EJgAc6CAY/UyhothhNTKI/AAAAAAAARLk/RLj-5nVD01A/s1600/wheelbarrow.jpeg

[bogan]

OK, fair enough. As it turns out finding any reports stating evidence one way or another as to whether cannabis use goes up or down after decriminalization is very challenging to find. (I failed)
I did find the following charts and further details for those that want to go to the page linked below - (purely optional - lest I be deemed being pathetic for sending people to webpages to do some reading).

Prevalence of Drug Use In The Previous Month Among Secondary Students (12-18 Years Old) In The Netherlands - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/The+Netherlands#Prevalence

http://majestic-quartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/lifetime.jpg

http://majestic-quartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/last-month.jpg

What these charts tell lay person me, is that drug use goes up and down by quite dramatic amounts independent of current/changing drug laws. So it is my opinion the Colorado reports too will be next to useless.

So I will delve into my anecdotal experience as a once teenager and father of 4, tell a teenager not to do something, and guess what, it is like putting tomato sauce on hot chips, makes them a whole lot more attractive. So they will go out of their way to do it. And for the goody two shoes that do not will probably have a crack at smoking weed if it is legalized/decriminalized. So for a time numbers will spike with "tryer outers", and then over time may subside with those that simply do not find the effect to their liking. - But all the while the overall numbers will go up and down any way due to other multiple unknown factors that simply cannot ever be quantified.

Now that is a much more compelling point. To follow it up the obvious choice is to remove other demographic factors as much as is possible, ie, if it went up by 20% in two US states after legalisation, did the same trend happen elsewhere in the US as well? http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/past-month-use-of-selected-drugs.gif

Which follows the statement in the data me and RDJ put up, "Nationally, monthly marijuana use by people 12 and older nudged upward by about 4 percent to 7.4 percent." Such a control group lends great weight to removing confounding environmental factors.


And furthermore, I come back to the idea (see, I didn't use the word 'fact') that people are quite likely to be more honest about illicit drug use once the drug is actually not illicit anymore.

How one could provide evidence for that speculation is anyone's guess.

Anonymising survey data is very common practice when dealing with illicit/personal details, I'd be a little surprised if there hadn't been some double blinds etc done to establish its efficacy.

Evidence is.

...probably available if you look hard enough.

[Katman]

Evidence is.

...probably available if you look hard enough.

Except that I actually don't give a fuck.

If a few more people try cannabis when it becomes legal, who cares?

It might actually result in some people reducing their alcohol intake.

[bogan]

Except that I actually don't give a fuck.

Your panoply of replies and abuse at others on this topic suggests otherwise :laugh:

[Katman]

Your panoply of replies and abuse at others on this topic suggests otherwise :laugh:

Meh, I just like swearing at people.

Especially fuckwits.

[husaberg]

Your panoply of replies and abuse at others on this topic suggests otherwise :laugh:

I might also be minimising his paranoia though.................. :rolleyes:
Its all to do with curing cancer though.

[RDJ]

There is a fair amount of sound, scientific, research-based evidence that cannabis can mitigate the side effects of some cancers, and especially the side-effects of the treatments for many cancers. it is a shame that cannabis is not able to be prescribed for people suffering from the effects of these treatments.

There is zero, zip, nada scientific evidence that cannabis reduces tumour growth or tumour incidence, nor is there any evidence to suggest that cannabis use in combination with chemotherapy increases tumour sensitivity to chemotherapy (or for that matter radiotherapy).

The short version: as far as we know, cannabis don't cure cancer.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that regular cannabis use has effects on drivers with the level of impairment at least similar to drinking and driving. The use of cannabis followed by driving doubles the incidence of involvement in a fatal accident.

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

[husaberg]

There is a fair amount of sound, scientific, research-based evidence that cannabis can mitigate the side effects of some cancers, and especially the side-effects of the treatments for many cancers. it is a shame that cannabis is not able to be prescribed for people suffering from the effects of these treatments.

There is zero, zip, nada scientific evidence that cannabis reduces tumour growth or tumour incidence, nor is there any evidence to suggest that cannabis use in combination with chemotherapy increases tumour sensitivity to chemotherapy (or for that matter radiotherapy).

The short version: as far as we know, cannabis don't cure cancer.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that regular cannabis use has effects on drivers with the level of impairment at least similar to drinking and driving. The use of cannabis followed by driving doubles the incidence of involvement in a fatal accident.

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.


I was just trying to highlight what the actual thread was about as it seems to have been lost in a smokescreen:killingme

[RDJ]

I was just trying to highlight what the actual thread was about as it seems to have been lost in a smokescreen:killingme

Yep! (& for some people smoke is a feature not a bug...).

[bogan]

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

I'm remain unconvinced of that, have we seen such a trend in US where they have legalised it?

[husaberg]

Yep! (& for some people smoke is a feature not a bug...).

Yeah I guess for some the ends justifies the means.

http://www.amosnews.ro/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/pictures/2015/01/Eveniment/lance_armstrong.jpg?itok=U0sgxim0

[Katman]

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

Now you're talking bullshit again.

If someone is going to drive stoned they will do so whether cannabis is legal or not.

There are roadside tests available for recent cannabis use and it would therefore be treated no differently if it's legal status changed.

Alcohol is legal - it's illegal to drive pissed.

Get it?

[RDJ]

Accident-involved drivers with metabolites of cannabis in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the accident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself...

And the difficulty with your assertion that there are roadside tests available for cannabis abuse, is that metabolites of cannabis persist in the blood a lot longer after marijuana use, than metabolites of ethanol persist in the blood after drinking.

This is the background:

Roadside saliva testing to detect cannabis use occurs in a few overseas jurisdictions, but there are problems with it. Current saliva testing kits are not considered reliable enough for police to use when prosecuting people for being impaired by drugs while driving. In addition, saliva tests only show the presence of cannabis in the sample, which does not necessarily equate to a person being impaired (due to the amount of time cannabis can remain in a person’s system). Therefore police could not use them in place of the compulsory impairment test to assess if a person should not be driving.

At this time, roadside saliva tests are not considered to be reliable enough to support a random roadside testing regime. While roadside testing is being used in some Australian states, the tests miss some cannabis use and provide no evidence of whether a person is impaired by use. In a random roadside testing regime, drivers who are missed by a saliva test would be allowed to drive away without further assessment, which could lead to dangerously ‘stoned’ drivers being left behind the wheel.

[FJRider]

... The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

Booze is legal ... but you're not allowed to drive when under the influence of it though ... <_<


But doing THAT seems common enough now. What will make the difference between being pissed ... or stoned ... in the great scale of impairments .. :shifty:





But I would guess there are a far greater number of impaired drivers with much more serious issues of impairment on the roads than booze or drugs (legal or not).

[RDJ]

I'm remain unconvinced of that, have we seen such a trend in US where they have legalised it?

Currently, impossible to tell. It seems likely based on Occam's Razor, but seems is not proof. Blood tests can only check the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for severe impairment, and because metabolites linger for days after the drug effect whereof, sometimes weeks, all the positive test tells you that a driver involved in an accident smoked pot at some stage in the last few days or weeks. This doesn’t mean that the marijuana caused or was a contributing factor to accidents etc; on the other hand, it doesn't mean it wasn't. And that is precisely the point.

When I'm treating a driver who smells of alcohol, the driver has usually* been drinking, but only a blood alcohol test will tell me if, say, his apparent stupor and other signs of intoxication are caused by a significant level of alcohol in the blood, or for example are solely or mostly due to the effects of a head injury. *People who smell of alcohol may have zero blood alcohol but smell because they've had alcohol spilt on them. A minority, but it happens... and it would be a major mistake to assume that someone is disorientated because they're drunk, when they may be disorientated because they're injured. So as an aside, drinking before your injury complicates your diagnosis (and treatment, but that's a whole other discussion)

But there is no clinical test that will distinguish the effects of recent cannabis use from the effects of recent alcohol use. And as already discussed, there is no reliable laboratory test at the roadside or in the ER that will give you a quick answer either.

[Katman]

Accident-involved drivers with metabolites of cannabis in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the accident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself...



Are you serious?

If the police think you're stoned now they'll take you straight off the road.

It will not change after the legal status changes.

Have you forgotten there are legal highs out there?

[RDJ]

Booze is legal ... but you're not allowed to drive when under the influence of it though ... <_<


But doing THAT seems common enough now. What will make the difference between being pissed ... or stoned ... in the great scale of impairments .. :shifty:


But I would guess there are a far greater number of impaired drivers with much more serious issues of impairment on the roads than booze or drugs (legal or not).

That is true. But is it wise to add yet another population of impaired drivers along with the already-drunken ones? Especially as the majority of people with cannabis on board, also drink.

You may be correct that there are a far number of impaired drivers with more serious issues of impairment than booze or drugs. But we don't see many of them in hospital... if you want to know how bad it gets an ER due to alcohol and drugs, read the New Zealand Medical Journal review article 10th June 2011, Volume 124 Number 1335. No need to take my word for it.

Bear in mind, what people drink and smoke and drive with impacts upon everybody else. The more time is consumed looking after the drunken fighters on a Saturday night, the less likely it is that the seriously ill or injured will get the best care available, quickly.

[RDJ]

Are you serious?

If the police think you're stoned now they'll take you straight off the road.

It will not change after the legal status changes.

Have you forgotten there are legal highs out there?

I had not forgotten there are legal highs out there, but they are presently legal. Whether it's smart for them to be legal is again an entirely different discussion.

What I have also not forgotten is that now, heigh-ho, it's off to work I go. and a wet and windy night so I just will break out the high viz gear... I trust I see none of the inmates of this forum at my place of work tonight or over the next week :-) May you all ride safely.

[Katman]

That is true. But is it wise to add yet another population of impaired drivers along with the already-drunken ones? Especially as the majority of people with cannabis on board, also drink.

You may be correct that there are a far number of impaired drivers with more serious issues of impairment than booze or drugs. But we don't see many of them in hospital... if you want to know how bad it gets an ER due to alcohol and drugs, read the New Zealand Medical Journal review article 10th June 2011, Volume 124 Number 1335. No need to take my word for it.

Bear in mind, what people drink and smoke and drive with impacts upon everybody else. The more time is consumed looking after the drunken fighters on a Saturday night, the less likely it is that the seriously ill or injured will get the best care available, quickly.

Well it should be easy enough to find out whether traffic incidents have increased noticeably in the places that have legalised cannabis.

[bogan]

Currently, impossible to tell. It seems likely based on Occam's Razor, but seems is not proof. Blood tests can only check the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for severe impairment, and because metabolites linger for days after the drug effect whereof, sometimes weeks, all the positive test tells you that a driver involved in an accident smoked pot at some stage in the last few days or weeks. This doesn’t mean that the marijuana caused or was a contributing factor to accidents etc; on the other hand, it doesn't mean it wasn't. And that is precisely the point.

When I'm treating a driver who smells of alcohol, the driver has usually* been drinking, but only a blood alcohol test will tell me if, say, his apparent stupor and other signs of intoxication are caused by a significant level of alcohol in the blood, or for example are solely or mostly due to the effects of a head injury. *People who smell of alcohol may have zero blood alcohol but smell because they've had alcohol spilt on them. A minority, but it happens... and it would be a major mistake to assume that someone is disorientated because they're drunk, when they may be disorientated because they're injured. So as an aside, drinking before your injury complicates your diagnosis (and treatment, but that's a whole other discussion)

But there is no clinical test that will distinguish the effects of recent cannabis use from the effects of recent alcohol use. And as already discussed, there is no reliable laboratory test at the roadside or in the ER that will give you a quick answer either.

What about looking at the totals though?

[FJRider]

That is true. But is it wise to add yet another population of impaired drivers along with the already-drunken ones? Especially as the majority of people with cannabis on board, also drink.

Has it not occured to you ... either pissed or stoned ... EVERBODY knows it IS illegal to drive under the influence of either NOW. Please explain how making a drug legal will change peoples perception of such .. ??

I do not believe there is ANY accurate information on what percentage of the driving population are driving stoned at present. So ... how could ANY (accurate) increase in numbers be claimed/declared .. ??


You may be correct that there are a far number of impaired drivers with more serious issues of impairment than booze or drugs. But we don't see many of them in hospital... if you want to know how bad it gets an ER due to alcohol and drugs, read the New Zealand Medical Journal review article 10th June 2011, Volume 124 Number 1335. No need to take my word for it.

Simple impairments like thinking it's ok to drive when ...

1. Not wearing their glasses when an endorsement on their license reqwuires it.
2. Thinking it's ok to text phone while driving.
3. Driving with no knowledge of any (recent) changes to important road rules.
4. Thinking there is NO difference between Give Way and Stop signs.

Feel free to add your own impairments people ...


Bear in mind, what people drink and smoke and drive with impacts upon everybody else. The more time is consumed looking after the drunken fighters on a Saturday night, the less likely it is that the seriously ill or injured will get the best care available, quickly.

The pissed and/or stoned I don't care about. It's the people they HURT when stoned/pissed I do ...

[RDJ]

Has it not occured to you ... either pissed or stoned ... EVERBODY knows it IS illegal to drive under the influence of either NOW. Please explain how making a drug legal will change peoples perception of such .. ??

I do not believe there is ANY accurate information on what percentage of the driving population are driving stoned at present. So ... how could ANY (accurate) increase in numbers be claimed/declared .. ??



Simple impairments like thinking it's ok to drive when ...

1. Not wearing their glasses when an endorsement on their license reqwuires it.
2. Thinking it's ok to text phone while driving.
3. Driving with no knowledge of any (recent) changes to important road rules.
4. Thinking there is NO difference between Give Way and Stop signs.

Feel free to add your own impairments people ...

The pissed and/or stoned I don't care about. It's the people they HURT when stoned/pissed I do ...


Thanks for the reasoned response. I agree, there doesn't seem to be any accurate information on what percentage are driving stoned; but there is accurate information on the percentage involved in injury and fatal accidents who are drug takers. While the impairments you list are all valid. But they don't appear to be as frequently lethal as impaired driving due to alcohol and drugs (disclaimer, the most serious accident I had in 35 years was being rear-ended at a traffic light by someone testing in a car). Also, the drunk-and-stoned need to be cared for; once people are injured, blaming them is fruitless, plus I already hear car drivers tell me from time to time that "injured motorcyclists (should) be left side of the road because we are mobile organ donors looking for some place to donate" and words to that effect. But what I was getting at was that the drunk and stoned delay treatment for everybody, not just themselves.

Stay safe!

[FJRider]

... but there is accurate information on the percentage involved in injury and fatal accidents who are drug takers.

I am in the belief that those that use drugs and drive now ... will continue if and when it is a legal drug. But ... what sort of percentage of "new" users are you expecting when legal status arrives .. that start using it because it is legal .. ??


While the impairments you list are all valid. But they don't appear to be as frequently lethal as impaired driving due to alcohol and drugs (disclaimer, the most serious accident I had in 35 years was being rear-ended at a traffic light by someone testing in a car).

Not as frequently reported you mean ... it's just not as newsworthy as "Another Drunk Driver Kills" ... :crazy:

Or do you just base your opinions on your own personal experiences ... ??? ;)

In other words ... if it hasn't happened to you already ... it probably won't ... maybe ... right .. ?? :scratch:

Fatal (including motorcycle) accidents are usually caused by a sequence of factors ... not always any of them being particulary dangerous on their own. But actual timing of them can make it serious. In particular ... one small error of yours in combination of one of the motorist coming towards you can and does turn fatal.


The last 35 years you've been lucky. Most will hope the luck continue. But please do not rely on luck ... or it being unlikely that another motorists mistake will never affect you.


... Also, the drunk-and-stoned need to be cared for; once people are injured, blaming them is fruitless,

I would say that more sober drivers are found to be at fault in accidents (than drink/Drug impaired ones) ... and ALSO need to be cared for. Blaming THEM is just as fruitless ... and I fail to see your point.


... plus I already hear car drivers tell me from time to time that "injured motorcyclists (should) be left side of the road because we are mobile organ donors looking for some place to donate" and words to that effect.

Maybe .... the drunk and drugged ones should be too ... :shutup:

But ... their organs might not be in a good enough condition to be suitable for donation ... :whistle:


... But what I was getting at was that the drunk and stoned delay treatment for everybody, not just themselves.

Stay safe!

Who is "Everybody Else" .. ???

Do you mean those that are not stoned or drunk getting priority treatment ... and not those needing priority treatment ... ???

I cannot see the medical fraternity agreeing to this.