Best
253 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    No, I've always felt it should be legalized. I don't smoke it, but I see nothing wrong with using it if you want to.
  • #56
    !
    But then pot causes obesity with the midnight munchies... so needs further testing... pass that joint please.
  • #6
    !
    From the article - "Note that you can't achieve anti-cancer benefits with recreational paraphernalia aka smoking a joint. To get enough Cannabidiol into your system to treat cancer, you need high concentrations injected into your bloodstream."
  • #114
    !
    @dances-weebles ya, right! The government is about money not health. Are FDA sucks. I've smoked since 14 and it does cause lung damage. And is one of the leading mind altering substances.
  • #115
    !
    @chadlew if pot is a leading mind altering substance, then it changes it for the better. i've known many brilliant scholars who have gotten their advanced degrees and made many magnificent advances while totally wasted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #75
    !
    People who say pot is evil and serves no purpose are ignorant!!!! Pot can be used some many different ways like medicine bc it does work to elveate
  • #76
    !
    ...Pain it works great for calming people down and it makes you hungry so you can eat when your sick with cancer and other illness. We could tax the hell out of it and make billions in a year. then all there's all the textile uses we could use and save more trees
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #19
    !
    "A compound found in cannabis" is quite different from the "pot" we're all familiar with. I don't think smoking a few joints is going to keep cancer from metastasizing...
  • #45
    !
    @dances-weebles They didn't look at the risk for lung cancer in that study. Only COPD seems to be avoided...but bronchitis still continues to be a problem.
  • #46
    !
    @ACTSmom i think that you'd find that it's all relative. for example... when i was smoking pot regularly i'd hit maybe 1 to 2 joints a week at most. with cigarettes i was smoking up to 5 packs a day. even at that my lungs and heart have remained clear. in fact, my doctor called me a liar when i told him how much i had been smoking and that i'd smoked for nearly 50 years.

    my heart exams showed absolutely no damage to my circulatory system, and there's not one mark on my lungs anywhere. luck... maybe.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    No. First of all, as Mary points out, this has nothing to do with smoking marijuana, for medicinal purposes or otherwise. This has to do with the use of one of the compounds found in cannabis as a concentrated medication.

    Second, this is not new. Scientists have known about the impact of Cannabidiol in halting the growth and spread of cancer cells for more than 5 years now, and articles about it have been available online for about the same amount of time.

    I don't know too many people that object to the use of cannabis-derived pharmaceuticals where medical research shows them to be effective. We already use compounds derived from all sorts of poisonous and illegal substances, which are not harmful when separated from their natural substances.

    My state has a medical marijuana proposal on the ballot in November. I am going to oppose it after seeing how rampantly a similar system has been abused in California.
  • #145
    !
    I hope you like gang violence, over-bloated law enforcement budgets, and the deterioration of civil liberties, because that's what you get when you empower an illegal market.
  • #153
    !
    @CitizenToker - Tell that to all the people whose lives have been ruined because they tried heroin one time.
  • #156
    !
    @Stratton
    I'm far too busy counting the thousands and and thousands and thousands of innocents who have been murdered at the hands of unregulated gangs, over zealous paramilitary law enforcement, and the many other social diseases that run rampant through a society corrupted by attempting to dictate morality. So you feel sorry for the junkies who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Im trying to reinstate the U.S. Constitution.
  • #157
    !
    @CitizenToker - Care to cite some proof of "thousands of innocents" murdered by "paramilitary law enforcement" in this country? Also, what would a "regulated" gang be exactly?

    It seems like you enjoy spouting a lot of verbiage, but don't seem to worry too much about whether what you're saying actually means anything. That's usually the symptom of somebody who isn't used to having their views challenged.

    The US Constitution, my friend, was not instituted for the purpose of protecting your ability to get high. And it certainly does not prevent the government from banning substances which are deemed to be dangerous to the public welfare. Or maybe you'd like to go on a crusade to make ricin legal?
  • #158
    !
    @Stratton
    The thousands was mostly in regard to the 60,000+ that have died in Mexico over the past 5 years, but there are ample news articles online that point to instances where SWAT teams have killed innocent people because they had the wrong address or other bad information. If you'll actually read them I'll look a few up for you and post links, but to get you started google SWAT kills decorated marine, Swat kills pets, and elderly woman killed in botched drug raid. In addition to these examples there are also millions of Americans who have suffered undue punishment for simply choosing to use cannabis instead of alcohol (think of all the people who have died in prisons who shouldn't have been there to begin with), not to mention the families of all those in prison who are having to survive without a bread winner and the children who don't have parents at home to offer them needed guidance. And for your info, the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect my ability to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I do no harm to others.. You are correct, however, in stating that it doesn't prevent the gov from banning things, though it should and was intended to. And to be honest, yes. If there's an idiot out there who wants to take ricin who are we to get in the way. Are you suggesting that the government should have the final say in how we leave this world in addition to how we live in it? Also, an example of a regulated gang would be, alcohol manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, and virtually any other business that would have to resort to violence to secure a share of a market, but doesn't have to because we don't put them in the position where they have to go underground. They can settle grievances in court without machine guns....
    Lol, and make no mistake, I'm plenty accustomed to having my views challenged because I choose to endorse liberty instead of the status quo, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    !
    More safe than the TAXED Cigarettes with all the additives, and safer than TAXED Alcohol that kills how many with health problems, and car accidents a day. You can't O.D. on weed.
  • #8
    !
    NOPE. Have believed for 25+ years it should be legal. Believe the government doesn't want it legalized because, unlike alcohol, pot can be produced by the masses without much effort (they don't call it WEED for nothing). That kind of cuts into their (the feds) tax liens on the stuff....
  • #7
    !
    After extensive testing and these claims are determined to be legitimate and people can’t smoke marijuana to get “high”, I’m all for it.
  • #78
    !
    Do you also think people shouldn't consume alcohol to get drunk? I'm trying to understand why you feel the government should have the right to control what people grow and consume for recreational purposes.
  • #80
    !
    @mynameisaric - You’re on to me.

    No body has the Right to do anything that is harmful to themselves or anyone else.

    Mans laws should reflect God’s Laws.
  • #81
    !
    @TheLoneRanger Well I don't believe in your god, so I shouldn't have to abide by any of his/her/its rules. As long as my rights do not breech your rights, then there shouldn't be a problem. Many Islamic nations suffer from a country's breech of separation of church and state. Don't start thinking that christian law would be any less oppressive than islamic law. If I want to overdose on cocaine, I should have the freedom to do so. If I get high on bath salts or meth and wander out into public and start affecting the safety and freedom of others, then I would be breaking the law. Willfully consuming any product should not be illegal. Selling a product known to cause serious addiction and adverse health affects should be illegal (ex. meth, bath salts, cocaine, etc.). However, marijuana and alcohol are no more addictive than chocolate, and in appropriate doses have been proven to alleviate problems. Its not up to the government to insure nobody takes more than a "recomended dose" of a legal substance.
  • #82
    !
    @mynameisaric - So your unbelief should trump God's laws? He doesn't agree with you as you will find out some day.

    And yes you have the choice to OD but that does not make it a Right.

    Also you do not have a Right to the outcome of your wrong choices such as ODing and dieing.
  • #83
    !
    @TheLoneRanger Part of being free is the ability to make bad decisions. If my bad decisions intrude on someone else's rights, then I am breaking the law. Until that time, my bad decisions are my freedom and liberty. You telling me that I have to abide by some law your prophet(s) wrote in a book some 2000 years ago is an intrusion on my liberties. Plain and simple.
  • R Load more replies

  • #245
    !
    Ok, to those of you who are saying Marijuana causes obesity and high cholesterol, that is ridiculous! If we follow your logic then forks and spoons actually cause obesity and high cholesterol...we should ban them.....Or, people could take responsibility for what they eat and accept that they, themselves cause obesity and high cholesterol! Just sayin'
  • #243
    !
    Got to be skeptical of any study coming from California. They are a little one sided out there and just weird.
  • #240
    !
    It certainly is interesting- but human trials are critical. As with many drugs in development, just because it works in the lab doesn't guarantee success in the clinic. Human metabolism is a funny thing. Using a synthesized compound was a smart move but the drug companies will jump in and start screening their chemistry decks to find a similar compound and eventual profit at the expense of patients.

    http://www.haineonlinetari.com/lenjerie-intim...
  • #235
    !
    no, have thought it should be legalized for a long time, other than helping a lot of people with different medical issues it would cut down on a lot of crime in our country and others, cut down on people in our jails and prisons and in return would save money, and by making it legal it would give our farmers a new crop to grow legally so our government can make more money off of us, so I dont see what the problem is
  • #241
    !
    Let's see on the one hand we have short-term memory loss on the other hand we have cancer.
    Wow, I see what you mean it's really really hard to tell which is worse.
  • R Load more comments...
Post