Cancer and the drug companies

[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-...nction-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:Me]

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 because that's just how you SJW's roll...