Page 4 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

number2
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 288

17 Sep 2011, 8:32 pm

A few years ago I would cut my self when I didnt have any bud but then I realized getting a tattoo is better and I have one of a marijuana leaf.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Sep 2011, 5:13 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:

That first line contradicts what I just put before it! Pharmaceutical companies are not necessarily evil! Also what does whether something is natural got to do with it? Penicillin is a 'natural' chemical, but that didn't stop pharmaceutical companies from delivering it in a safe form. Furthermore just because of some hearsay about some pharmaceutical company's anti-autism drug, doesn't mean that all pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous. Furthermore advertisments are supposed to make you buy a product. Also can I have an example of this blatantness?


Maybe not 'evil' but certainly full of corruption and their main goal is profit.....why do you figure pharmacutial drugs in this country are so damn expensive? And as it has been discussed edibles are safe.....and well pharmacutical companies are probably not good at gardening or baking so lets leave it to those who actually respect cannabis in its natural form and would like to put that to use...not have the pharmacutical companies screw around with it

Why is profit evil? Profit is not necessarily evil. Also the rest of your response smacks of false singulars. Not all phamaceutical companies are evil. Not all pharmaceutical companies are corrupt. Pharmaceutical companies could be good at making plant extracts on an industrial scale. Also as I already said 'natural' doesn't mean anything. It's a chemical. It doesn't matter if it is synthesized in a plant or in a factory.
.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And most pharmacutical drugs are dangerous, just pay attention to all the side effects. and they should not be advertising drugs like that......trying to coax people into trying a particular drug by manipulating them is not good.

Most? I am sorry but when I take codeine I don't get liver damage. Quit appealing to the worst five percent. My problem is that pharmaceutical companies DONT NEED to be evil. Hey, if you're making marijuana edibles for medicinal use, that means you're in the pharmaceutical industry.


Sweetleaf wrote:
should medicines to help people with serious problems be considered common consumer products? probably not this is peoples health we are talking about....cannabis does not need to be a 'pill' to be effective.

Why did you put pill in quote marks? Also yes actually. That's how economies work. Everything has a cost if you don't make it yourself. And what gives you the right to take away someone's ability to market a pill based on THC? As someone's right to buy it? It smacks of hypocrisy when you remember when companies tried to ban marijuana for their own purposes.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
But there are still risks of smoking and that's why I am trying to tell you!
REMOVE THE SMOKING=REMOVE THE NEGATIVES OF SMOKING=BETTER FOR THE USER=BETTER TREATMENT
If there is an alternative that reduces the insufficiency of anything in this world then you should seek it and this is just another example.


I know there are risks with smoking, but I don't think enough people oppose smoking it for medicinal/recreational purposes in my state for them to ban smoking for medicinal use. The alternatives to smoking are very availible at least if you have your medical marijuana card and thus access to the dispensaries. So people can use the alternatives, but many choose not to.

So is there a specially designed pill available? Also are you saying a medical community is proscribing smokeable marijuana? Asceplius' ghost!

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Not that I look upon smokers with much respect either. They can tank their lungs as far away from me as possible and we wont mind each other. Not that this effects the original argument that we were debating the use of marijuana extracts for use as medicine.


And I thought the argument was about medicinal marijuana......most places medicinal marijuana is legal those who are legally using it smoke it, eat edibles, use the tinctures ect. Medicinal marijuana is legal in some place and smoking is one method people choose. It wont cause as much lung damage as ciggerettes either.

It will still cause lung damage.
Sweetleaf wrote:
And I thought the argument was about medicinal marijuana......


Also, are you actually reading what I put?

Gedrene wrote:
Not that this effects the original argument that we were debating the use of marijuana extracts for use as medicine


Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that I had pointed this out?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 Sep 2011, 6:57 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:

That first line contradicts what I just put before it! Pharmaceutical companies are not necessarily evil! Also what does whether something is natural got to do with it? Penicillin is a 'natural' chemical, but that didn't stop pharmaceutical companies from delivering it in a safe form. Furthermore just because of some hearsay about some pharmaceutical company's anti-autism drug, doesn't mean that all pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous. Furthermore advertisments are supposed to make you buy a product. Also can I have an example of this blatantness?


Maybe not 'evil' but certainly full of corruption and their main goal is profit.....why do you figure pharmacutial drugs in this country are so damn expensive? And as it has been discussed edibles are safe.....and well pharmacutical companies are probably not good at gardening or baking so lets leave it to those who actually respect cannabis in its natural form and would like to put that to use...not have the pharmacutical companies screw around with it

Why is profit evil? Profit is not necessarily evil. Also the rest of your response smacks of false singulars. Not all phamaceutical companies are evil. Not all pharmaceutical companies are corrupt. Pharmaceutical companies could be good at making plant extracts on an industrial scale. Also as I already said 'natural' doesn't mean anything. It's a chemical. It doesn't matter if it is synthesized in a plant or in a factory.

never used the word evil.......but I certainly do not feel very kindly towards the pharmacutical companies. Fact of the matter is they are more about profit then helping anyone. They are also one of the reasons medicinal marijuana and marijuana in general is not legal in more states or federally illegal.

They lose money if people turn to marijuana, because anyone can grow it and it has lots of actual medicinal uses...You don't have to belive it or agree but that is how it works.


Sweetleaf wrote:
And most pharmacutical drugs are dangerous, just pay attention to all the side effects. and they should not be advertising drugs like that......trying to coax people into trying a particular drug by manipulating them is not good.

Most? I am sorry but when I take codeine I don't get liver damage. Quit appealing to the worst five percent. My problem is that pharmaceutical companies DONT NEED to be evil. Hey, if you're making marijuana edibles for medicinal use, that means you're in the pharmaceutical industry.

Well I do not think I specifically mentioned codiene, I mentioned the ingredient found in tylenol, Acetaminophen that they also put in many prescription pain pills like vicodin to discourage excess/recreational use they don't need to add this chemical but they do. And that chemical causes liver damage.

Sweetleaf wrote:
should medicines to help people with serious problems be considered common consumer products? probably not this is peoples health we are talking about....cannabis does not need to be a 'pill' to be effective.

Why did you put pill in quote marks? Also yes actually. That's how economies work. Everything has a cost if you don't make it yourself. And what gives you the right to take away someone's ability to market a pill based on THC? As someone's right to buy it? It smacks of hypocrisy when you remember when companies tried to ban marijuana for their own purposes.

People can grow marijuana themselves, why should that be illegal?.....oh yeah because the companies who make drugs lose money if people who would otherwise use pharmacutical drugs use marijuana instead. I don't care if someone makes a THC pill and sells it.......but I think people should have the right to choose if they want that, to grow their own plant in their house or go to the dispensary.


Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
But there are still risks of smoking and that's why I am trying to tell you!
REMOVE THE SMOKING=REMOVE THE NEGATIVES OF SMOKING=BETTER FOR THE USER=BETTER TREATMENT
If there is an alternative that reduces the insufficiency of anything in this world then you should seek it and this is just another example.


I know there are risks with smoking, but I don't think enough people oppose smoking it for medicinal/recreational purposes in my state for them to ban smoking for medicinal use. The alternatives to smoking are very availible at least if you have your medical marijuana card and thus access to the dispensaries. So people can use the alternatives, but many choose not to.

So is there a specially designed pill available? Also are you saying a medical community is proscribing smokeable marijuana? Asceplius' ghost!

Yes in the state I live in medicinal marijuana is legal and the dispensaries sell smokable marijuana, edibles, tinctures ect.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Not that I look upon smokers with much respect either. They can tank their lungs as far away from me as possible and we wont mind each other. Not that this effects the original argument that we were debating the use of marijuana extracts for use as medicine.


And I thought the argument was about medicinal marijuana......most places medicinal marijuana is legal those who are legally using it smoke it, eat edibles, use the tinctures ect. Medicinal marijuana is legal in some place and smoking is one method people choose. It wont cause as much lung damage as ciggerettes either.

It will still cause lung damage.

Yes smoking cannabis can contribute to lung damage and other respitory damage, I don't deny that.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And I thought the argument was about medicinal marijuana......


Also, are you actually reading what I put?

Gedrene wrote:
Not that this effects the original argument that we were debating the use of marijuana extracts for use as medicine


Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that I had pointed this out?


Ok the OP mentioned medicinal marijuana...in my state and other states where that is legal they sell smokable marijuana at the dispensaries....not extracts just actual marijuana or things like tinctures and edibles that have marijuana in them. So I don't see how the debate wahs about marijuana extracts.

And no I am not purposely doing anything other than trying to explain my opinion.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

20 Sep 2011, 8:45 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
never used the word evil.......but I certainly do not feel very kindly towards the pharmacutical companies. Fact of the matter is they are more about profit then helping anyone. They are also one of the reasons medicinal marijuana and marijuana in general is not legal in more states or federally illegal.

You said they were not exactly evil but... So you did say they were evil. Also all companies have to think about profit first. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. And again you use false singulars. Your attempt to tar all pharmaceutical companies with the same brush is cackhanded andfallacious, not to mention unfair.

Sweetleaf wrote:
They lose money if people turn to marijuana, because anyone can grow it and it has lots of actual medicinal uses...You don't have to belive it or agree but that is how it works.
I don't mind if they legalize marijuana for the uses of medicine. If anything I would prefer if people did grow it themselves.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Well I do not think I specifically mentioned codiene, I mentioned the ingredient found in tylenol, Acetaminophen that they also put in many prescription pain pills like vicodin to discourage excess/recreational use they don't need to add this chemical but they do. And that chemical causes liver damage.
They don't need to add a chemical that discourages excessive use. Wait a sec, that doesn't sound like profiteering at all like you accused them of doing. Also I just found out what Acetominophen is. It's paracetamol. Also vicodin is a combination of paracetamol and hydrocodone. It can't be called vicodin if it doesn't have both of those ingredients in because it needs both of those ingedients to have the proscribed effect.

Acetaminophen liver damage you were talking about from the Wiki: While generally safe for use at recommended doses (1,000 mg per single dose and up to 4,000 mg per day for adults, up to 2,000 mg per day if drinking alcohol), acute overdoses of paracetamol can cause potentially fatal liver damage and, in rare individuals, a normal dose can do the same.

4000 mg by the way is equivalent to eight tablets of paracetamol.

So for one single drug it's not so clear cut as 'it causes liver damage'


Sweetleaf wrote:
People can grow marijuana themselves, why should that be illegal?.....oh yeah because the companies who make drugs lose money if people who would otherwise use pharmacutical drugs use marijuana instead. I don't care if someone makes a THC pill and sells it.......but I think people should have the right to choose if they want that, to grow their own plant in their house or go to the dispensary.
Did I say this was wrong? I never said people shouldn't grow marijuana. I just said they shouldn't smoke it. Quit trying to associate me with some crazy scheme on demonizing corporations.


Sweetleaf wrote:
Yes in the state I live in medicinal marijuana is legal and the dispensaries sell smokable marijuana, edibles, tinctures ect.
Telling people that they can smoke is not good medical practice.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Yes smoking cannabis can contribute to lung damage and other respitory damage, I don't deny that.

Thankyou for not shirking from that. Honesty in the face of difficult facts is something I see too rarely on here.

Sweetleaf wrote:

Ok the OP mentioned medicinal marijuana...in my state and other states where that is legal they sell smokable marijuana at the dispensaries....not extracts just actual marijuana or things like tinctures and edibles that have marijuana in them. So I don't see how the debate wahs about marijuana extracts.

And no I am not purposely doing anything other than trying to explain my opinion.

Well to be honest I was using marijuana extract because it would be a decent way of providing people with a chemical that may benefit them without relying on a method that causes lung damage. It's still all about medical marijuana. I think it began when I first showed my dislike for smoking as an offhand comment.



Aspiewordsmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2008
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 564
Location: United Kingdom, England, Berkshire, Reading

13 Dec 2014, 3:31 pm

I can' t imagine Boots teaming up with Greggs to sell spacecake for people with epilepsy, cancer HIV, or multiple sclerosis because as far as weed is concerned here in the UK its a class B controlled drug and not officially allowed on prescription even though Sativex has been developed by GW Pharmaceuticals for multiple sclerosis. Shame they couldn't have intoduced it for epilepsy or PTSD.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

13 Dec 2014, 4:08 pm

its "high" time they give autistics medical marijuana,maybe with a "joint" effort of the ASAN and autism speaks this can be accomplished. :lol:


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined