Not 100% agree with ZOMGits on Marijuana

[Hedley]

IT IS SUPPORTED BY HARDCORE EVIDENCE.

I have posted double-blind studies, and even the Cohort studies that you demanded, some of them with 10,000+ study participants. The burden of proof has been met more than adequately; saying, 'Where is the evidence?' at this point is n better than the Creationist demanding 'more evidence' of evolution after being pointed to TalkOrigins.org.


Where are your counter-claims, if you have any?

I can,´t counter-claim until I evaluate the evidence presented skeptically...
I am also reading this: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884 in cohort studies, it seems to be useful for pain (only), but I need to read it with a magnify lens!
I am open-minded, but I need to evaluate the evidence presented give me 2 weeks in order to present some informed opinion...
I also have other things to do: write a paper and attend to a course...

Is that ok to you?

 

[TheJilvin]

Why does it matter if marijuana actually has any strong medical use or not? Should preventing people from putting a substance into their body be something considered "okay"?

 

[lrkun]

Why does it matter if marijuana actually has any strong medical use or not? Should preventing people from putting a substance into their body be something considered "okay"?

Whether mary jane's medical use matters.

It matters since some want to legalize the use of mary jane and not having medical use will not legalize such.

Whether preventing one from putting substances into one's own body considered okay.

It depends on the circumstance since some it might require the use therein or not.

 

[borrofburi]

Why does it matter if marijuana actually has any strong medical use or not? Should preventing people from putting a substance into their body be something considered "okay"?

If that substance is asbestos, then yes.

 

[SagansHeroes]

Why does it matter if marijuana actually has any strong medical use or not? Should preventing people from putting a substance into their body be something considered "okay"?

If that substance is asbestos, then yes.

Well.... Obviously... but it depends on how you decide where the line is between "it's ok to cause yourself harm with chemical X, but not chemical Y."

Being this is supposedly the board of Reason, I would assume for such an instance most people would require a sort of standard model for determining what is "legal" or not.

In the instance of drugs, the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal, let alone how easy it is to get lethal quantities of pain relief/sleeping medication, would suggest that marijuana, ecstasy and LSD (as well as a handful of others) should be legal, or at least less ruthlessly enforced.
Spending billions of dollars to put otherwise normal contributing members of society into jail, and often turning an otherwise normal person into a life long criminal (as so happens when being locked in an enclosed space with hundreds/thousands of other hardened criminals), seems completely unreasonable.

Considering we have many debilitating diseases that we are trying to cure, but we can't check all of our options because drug "X" is illegal, despite not having anywhere near as harmful effects as certain legal substances, is downright insane.
E, for example increases dopamine in the brain, bringing that euphoric feeling. Dopamine imbalance is believed to be linked/a cause of parkinsons. It's limited tests in the field is due to, a now defunct, study where they accidentally injected the test monkeys with CRYSTAL METH (actually seriously harmful drug) instead of ecstasy, and concluded that the conditions caused by meth, were caused be ecstasy.

http://neurobonkers.com/?p=2056

 

[Independent Vision]

There are a lot of issues out there which could, possibly, be helped with various now illegal drugs. And when I say helped I mean substances which are less harmful than the, now legal, counterparts.

Insomnia, as an example. Some of the medication people are given for insomnia are HIGHLY addictive and can cause life long dependency. There is a possibility that other, now illegal, substances might work just as well and be LESS addictive. Anxiety is another thing that might be helped with what is currently illegal substances in a much less harmful way. Most people with anxiety issues are usually prescribed bensodiazapines. Which are the frikkin' devil. I swear. Highly addictive and it turns you into a zombie. I had them for a while when my anxiety was at it's worse. You pop ONE of those babies, reading because hard, let alone trying to figure out why your mother is telling you the bread doesn't go in the fridge but in the bread basket. That took me a good three minutes, during which I just looked at her blankly... then I went "ooooooh.... riiiiiiiiiiiiight." and put the damned bread back on the table. I didn't dare use it much after that. I was supposed to take it to prevent panic attacks, but I became terrified of it.

Marijuana could, under close medical scrutiny, possibly help at least some of the people suffering from these problems. Of coarse, it wouldn't work for everyone, but no drug does. Some anti-depressants make some people even more depressed, some anti-psychotics make people more psychotic. Everyone is different, but not utilizing something that could be way better than what we're using now "just because it's illegal now" is stupid.
We use plenty of products that are way worse than these illegal drugs.

 

[Balstrome]

Put it into a pill form and be able to measure the dosage, and you have something to start with, I think. But I would suggest that most supporters of it, be they in actual medical need of this, or not, like the effect of getting stoned.

If I even won a big lotto, that is one study that I would fund, to see if getting high makes people preform better or more effectively. I always found that claim to be suspect.

 

[Independent Vision]

Put it into a pill form and be able to measure the dosage, and you have something to start with, I think. But I would suggest that most supporters of it, be they in actual medical need of this, or not, like the effect of getting stoned.

If I even won a big lotto, that is one study that I would fund, to see if getting high makes people preform better or more effectively. I always found that claim to be suspect.

adhd medication?

all is relative depending on a persons brain chemistry. An anti-depressant given to a non-depressed individual could actually make them depressed.