Jedi Council Forums - Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros
malkieD2 Title: EuroMod™-JCC - FFUK-RSA Emeritus Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 8/2/07 8:09am Subject: RE: Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros
	JT11 posted: Clinical evidence doesn't overwhelmingly support one side or another, and the real positive effects you are supporting come from prescribed and monitored use, not from recreational use. Actually, there is a greater body of evidence from anecdotal evidence supporting medical cannabis than there is from prescribed and monitored use, largely due to the legal status of cannabis. The clinical evidence overwhelmingly supports the positive side of mdeical cannabis. If you disagree I would really appreciate you putting a little effort into presenting some evidence which supports your side. It is unfair on your part to continue to post claim after claim without making any effort to support them with evidence. -----signature----- HBOF There are only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary jokes, and those who don't. If you don't already know, you'll never understand. If you already know, no explanation is needed - KW
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Smileyface Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 8/3/07 1:34pm Subject: RE: Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros
	I'm all for recreational drug use. And not just marijuana either. I say all drugs are good, they help to thin the herd, so to speak. They help get rid of the weak and useless members of society either by killing them off directly or by marginalising them (or at the very least reducing their effectivity) through addicition. For those of us that don't use drugs, recreational drug use among others is a boon. It gives us a great advantage. I remember that in college most of my friends were chronic marijauna users. Upon graduation we all had to sit the same exams as we all applied for the same jobs. I remember discussing the exams with them after and I was surprised (then but not now) by how many questions that they had known the answers to that they had simply blown. You might be able to put it down to nerves if it had happenned to only one of them. But across the board like that, and knowing how marijuana (allegedly) affects memory, you have to wonder. It definitely seemed to give me an edge (indeed I was offered, and accepted, positions that they were not). It should be noted that academically or otherwise our group was mostly indistinguishable. At any rate, if people want to use drugs, I say more power to them, social darwinism and all that...
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediTre11 Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 8/9/07 1:49am Subject: RE: Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros
	malkieD2 posted: Actually, there is a greater body of evidence from anecdotal evidence supporting medical cannabis than there is from prescribed and monitored use, largely due to the legal status of cannabis. The clinical evidence overwhelmingly supports the positive side of mdeical cannabis. If you disagree I would really appreciate you putting a little effort into presenting some evidence which supports your side. It is unfair on your part to continue to post claim after claim without making any effort to support them with evidence. What you consider evidence, and what I consider evidence are two different things, largely because you're a physician, and I'm not. I don't have access to the journals without breaking the bank, and even if I did, I wouldn't understand things like endo-cannabinoid system, or other neurotransmitter processes. If the clinical evidence is overwhelming, then it must be politics holding back approval from the FDA, which is no surprise as its a very politically tied organization. I think that is sad, but I also think its a moot point anyway because marijuana won't cure anything, correct? Tell me, educate me, is it known for certain that people that need medical marijuana because it is the only thing that works, really not just salivating like Pavlov's dog? Are they not subconsciously perceiving a pain in order to receive a reward for an addiction? If what you say is true, then bring on medical marijuana. But don't expect it to cure cancer, and do expect every last real addict in town to come complaining of chronic back and joint pain. And really, until it does cure something, medical professionals are better off focusing their time on something else. Lowbacca_1977 posted: JediTre, if the logic is anyone else could be effected negatively, however, then doesn't that rule out virtually all acts? I can't take a high paying job because someone else is then harmed by not getting that same job, for example. I took the question to be the more relevant issue of acts that don't cause direct harm to others, however if you would like to make the case that any act even tangentally involving other people can then be regulated by government because its not perfectly isolated, then I think you are going down an exceedingly dangerous path. I really can't emphasize this enough. There is no positive or negative aspect to this question. Simply that individuals don't exist though actions, they exist though interactions. Kind of like that tree falling in the woods. If a person never interacts with someone, then who besided the individual can say it happened? Can the individual even say it happened? How can it be my contention that anything that affects others should be prohibited when I'm making the point that all acts affect others? To ban all acts? And reading into the utility, why would a positive act be prohibited? No, that is not my contention. This exceedingly dangerous path...you give it more of a malicious personality than is warranted. The opposite is true as well; imagine a world where no one is protected by laws and government. The case I make, is a government should have the ability to respond to the expressed interests of a collective, and to be held accountable by this collective; but also that each individual in this collective should hold themselves above the standard set for the government, and expect the same from those around them. For example: people should feel inhibition towards some acts, even the mundane and legal, like cutting in line at a movie theater. It really hurts no one, everyone is getting into the movie right? Or driving after even one drink. Sure, the driver isn't drunk, or breaking the law, but as an individual, one should feel a need to be without the effects of one drink while driving. Maybe it is that fraction of a second lost that could have made a difference between a fatality and a fender-bender. While this may seem like speculation, it is the virtue of siding on the side of caution that should govern the act of the individual. There are acts that a government would be better off staying out of, that lay upon this dangerous path, but there is no such line for personal standards. In terms of recreational drug use, a person may believe they are not harming anyone else, but it is more accurate to say they don't intend to harm anyone else. It certainly isn't benefiting anyone else (besides the dealer, who arguably isn't really benefiting.) As a whole, what about drug users' actions have benefited the present and future collective of people? The Beatles were a positive because of their music, not because they were stoners. -----signature----- There follows an untranslatable play on words with the use of local idiomatic expressions. History B.A. If no God, there must be at least a pattern-making demiurge. - Anthony Burgess
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
malkieD2 Title: EuroMod™-JCC - FFUK-RSA Emeritus Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 8/9/07 3:03am Subject: RE: Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros
	JT posted: I don't have access to the journals without breaking the bank, and even if I did, I wouldn't understand things like endo-cannabinoid system, or other neurotransmitter processes. Your closest University library should carry all of the journals I've mentioned, and you should be able to access them for free if you make an arrangement with the library. However, as you've suggested some of them might be written in such a technical way to make them complex to digest. If there are any specific question you have then I can easily address them, and hopefully convey them in such a way to make them easy for anyone to understand. More education is whats actually needed and I'm happy to assist if I can. JT posted: If the clinical evidence is overwhelming, then it must be politics holding back approval from the FDA, which is no surprise as its a very politically tied organization The FDA has already allowed drobinol to be licenced, and will continue to licence cannabis analogues - some of which are more potent than THC. The key is the chemical alterations which make them selective for one of the specific cannabis/THC receptor proteins, or design the analogues in such a way that they won't enter the brain, but will have effects on peripheral organs. Your point is moot - cannabis-based medicine is already available, and there are plenty in the pipeline behind them. JT posted: I think that is sad, but I also think its a moot point anyway because marijuana won't cure anything, correct? This is more of a philosophical point on treatment versus cure. There isn't (and won't be) a cure for 99% of diseases. If something is damaged beyond repair then there won't be a cure. Potentially gene-therapy and stem-cell therapy in the future might allow us to give more cures but I personally am not holding out too much hope. We are very good at small molecule therapy, which is essentially a "cure" by replacing a missing neurotransmitter, or switching off an overactive system. You constantly need to take the medicine because your body is unable to fix itself. I don't see why you won't accept that as a cure. If you body lacks a certain transmitter, why don't you consider replacing this transmitter as a cure? JT posted: Tell me, educate me, is it known for certain that people that need medical marijuana because it is the only thing that works, really not just salivating like Pavlov's dog? I've already address this point. The fact is that cannabis/THC and analogues work in animal models of disease, and secondly when trialed against placebo control only the cannabis works. JT posted: Are they not subconsciously perceiving a pain in order to receive a reward for an addiction? No, see above. And please remember that many of these analogues do not retain the central effects of cannabis. JT posted: But don't expect it to cure cancer um, plenty of evidence supporting the anti-cancer effects of cannabinoids. read :- Cancer Res. 2007 Aug 1;67(15):7230-7 or Oncogene. 2007 Jul 9, or Int J Cancer. 2007 Jun 21, or Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jul;10(4):443-8. Those are articles from just the past two months. Furthermore, please also remember that cannabis/THC/analogues are perfect cures for the nausea, vomitting and weight loss associated with conventional chemo and radio therapy. -----signature----- HBOF There are only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary jokes, and those who don't. If you don't already know, you'll never understand. If you already know, no explanation is needed - KW
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darthOB1 Registered: Mar '00	Date Posted: 8/9/07 9:20am Subject: RE: Recreational Drug Use--Pros and Pros
	Darth_Smileyface posted: I'm all for recreational drug use. And not just marijuana either. I say all drugs are good, they help to thin the herd, so to speak. They help get rid of the weak and useless members of society either by killing them off directly or by marginalising them (or at the very least reducing their effectivity) through addicition.... All I have to say is WOW! -----signature----- “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton "The fact that a theory is able to describe an observation does not mean the observation proves the theory" unknown
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »