911 call: TX man shoots robbers with shotgun

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614371' date='Dec 27 2007, 02:49 PM']I'm going to operate under the assumption you're not being facetious.

I think if I asked the government for a supply of marijuana and funding for a clinical research project to study the "effects of getting high" due to recreational cannabis use in humans I would receive the same answer if I asked to conduct the same study using heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, LSD, ecstasy, etc. I don't believe I would be able to get funding to study the effects of recreational amoxicillin use, for that matter either.[/quote]

I know, and because of that, in my opinion, you can't claim to scientifically know the effects of recreational drug use.

[quote]Do you mean marijuana's stimulating effect upon appetite? Oh, wait...research is being done upon how this could medically benefit chemo patients. Silly medical research. What about how marijuana affects the central nervous system? Research has and is being done with MS and epilepsy patients. Well, crap...that isn't the type of information you want. You probably want to know how many brain cells you're killing with each toke. Something important like that, right? Maybe we could do a large multicenter, double blind, placebo controlled study investigating the effects of recreational marijuana use upon the fetus in pregnant women?[/quote]

I'm not personally interested in marijuana being a medicine, to be completely honest. It's a very small group of people who would ever use marijuana medically, and to make that the focus of ALL marijuana research is misguided.

[quote]You've stated, "they don't do controlled studies," "the government doesn't give out marijuana for scientific research," "Alcohol is the only drug that [i]inhibits[/i] brain function. Others overload pleasurable neurotransmitters." False, false, and let me check...Oh, yes, false. The government grows, distribute, and conducts research involving marijuana and you think you've been proven wrong on a [i]small[/i] point? I don't think our government's involvement with an illegal substance is a small point. I think it is rather a very large point that our government wouldn't completely shut the door on this topic, but continues to 'deal' marijuana to researchers who could eventually tell the government, "Oops, you're wrong, Big Brother."[/quote]

Why not tests on the effects of smoking marijuana and driving? Why not the effects of smoking marijuana and then doing cognitive tests? Why not the effects of marijuana and social relations. Why? Would it be because they may find that it's not that bad?

[quote]If you think the government's agenda is to treat marijuana as an illegal substance, you're right. Is the government going to tightly regulate to whom they distribute marijuana for research? Absolutely. Why? Because if they didn't the system would be abused. Bogus research groups would be clamoring for marijuana much in the same way a dog got a prescription for medical marijuana in California. You're actually surprised or outraged that the government would control access to an illegal substance for research purposes?[/quote]

That strictly, yes. But you're right, those wily University professors, always trying to score free weed from the man.

[quote]Now as to the two quotes you posted from an "article." I don't know what article the quotes came from, but they are from [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=a8g7QptAUtwC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=the+controlled+substances+act+of+1970+labeled+marijuana+a+drug+of+maximum+danger+and+no+redeeming+value+this+classification+was+immediately+challenged+by+the+national+organization+for+the+reform+of+marijuana+laws+but+the+government+simply+refused+to+discuss+it+in+1986+the+dea+finally+decided+to+hold+the+public+hearings&source=web&ots=AQgSmUEQmz&sig=3ALc5ZzU7viApU6kKla4XcmsjKg#PPA174,M1"]Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess And How We Can Get Out by Mike Gray.[/url] The first quote can be found on pages 174 and 175. The second quote is found on page 175.

Dr. Donald Abrams has published:

Carter, G.T., Weydt, P., Kyashna-Tocha, M., Abrams, D.I. (2004). Medical cannabis: Rational guidelines for dosing. Idrugs, 7, 464-470.

Abrams, D.I., Hilton, J.F., Leiser, R.J., Shade, S.B., Elbeik, T.A., Aweeka, F.T., Benowitz, N.L., Bredt, B.M., Kosel, B., Aberg, J.A., Deeks, S.G., Mitchell, T.F., Mulligan, K., McCune, J.M., Schambelan, M. (2003). Short-term safety of cannabinoids in HIV infection: Results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Annals Internal Medicine, 139, 258-266.


Kosel, B.W., Aweeka, F.T., Benowitz, N.L., Shade, S.B., Hilton, J.F., Lizak, P.S., Abrams, D.I. (2002). The effects of cannabinoids on the pharmacokinetics of indinavir and nelfinavir. AIDS, 16, 543-550.

Abrams, D.I. (2000). Potential interventions for HIV/AIDS wasting: An overview. JAIDS, 25, S74-S80.

UConn has a library, right? Would you be a good little boy and look up these articles for me? I'd like to know who sold Dr. Abrams and his co-authors the Chronic they used to conduct these studies? Thank you.



I like to look things up for myself. It's a character flaw. JAMA lists 11 articles with "Nahas." I'm unable to find that quote. I am unable to view Mike Gray's bibliography online. My local Barnes and Noble doesn't have a copy of Drug Crazy in stock and I damn sure ain't buying a copy. So one more favor, I'd like to know which issue of JAMA contains this quote so I can read the entire article for myself.[/quote]

Yea, I know what book those are from, I own it and typed those out. His notes section doesn't cite the specific article, sorry. But the claim I made about the government not giving out marijuana was taken from that same article

[quote]If you had just arrived from Mars and were trying to make some sense out of the furor surrounding the medical usefulness of a local herb, you would probably wonder why nobody had bothered to do a definitive test. The problem is that marijuana is not just a controlled substance, it is totally illegal - not even available to qualified medical researchers. Investigators could always buy a stash from their students, but that's not how scientific research is done. You must apply instead for a special dispensation from the government, and for the last twenty years, the government has said no. Anyone who challenged was invited onto a labrynthian bureaucratic game board with constantly moving goalposts.[/quote]

The book was written in 1998, and yes, I was wrong to assume that thing had remained the same, because as you probably notice all those studies you showed from Dr. Abrams are from 2000 onward. Is this the first time you've seen someone on the internet make claims that turn out to be wrong? It's not like I was making wild claims from out of left field, nor do I have a problem admitting that I'm wrong.

I don't have a problem with the government regulating who they give it out to, I have a problem with the repeated history of underhanded, back-door attempts to squash Marijuana, i.e. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, or saying that researchers can get it from the government and then putting them through the run-around.

[quote]Like I've stated, I'm not debating the legality of marijuana. If the government legalized it I would expect a very similar situation towards alcohol post-Prohibition.

I'm not debating marijuana's vs. alcohol's health effects. Alcohol causes cirrhosis, pancreatitis, fetal alcohol syndrome, alcohol poisoning, addiction, etc.

You've made some false claims. I've tried to get you to educate yourself by providing you with 3 references for you to read. Is it that damn hard? Is the American Medical Association that untrustworthy? May I suggest researching PET scans of the brain in marijuana users? I guess I could suggest it, but you've already got quite a few incomplete homework assignments already.[/quote]

So really, what are you arguing? Just that I was wrong on those points? I'm honestly not even sure. And on the PET brain scans... is there research of that available? I haven't heard of it, and would be interested to read it.

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

I'm going to do this one bass ackwards, OK? That way I can put the bottomline up front.

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']So really, what are you arguing? Just that I was wrong on those points? I'm honestly not even sure. And on the PET brain scans... is there research of that available? I haven't heard of it, and would be interested to read it.[/quote]
Maybe I believe accuracy and objectivity are important. Is that so baffling? If you're statements are proven to be inaccurate or biased then your credibility suffers. Credibility will help you gain respect and attention for your cause. If your goal is to reform marijuana laws in the US, you'll need all the credibility you can muster. So far, all you've done is step all over your credibility with golf spikes because you haven't given me a single reason to believe anything you state.

I gave you three sources regarding marijuana research. I provided you with the information you could read and judge for yourself; then decide to accept that information as trustworthy or reject it as false. Either way, you would educate yourself. You still haven't shown the slightest inclination to read the summary published by the American Medical Academy. If you had read the information you wouldn't continue to make foolish statements.

With that in mind, here's a good source of info on ==> [url="http://medicine.uchc.edu/contact/contact.aspx"]PET scans[/url]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']Is this the first time you've seen someone on the internet make claims that turn out to be wrong? It's not like I was making wild claims from out of left field, nor do I have a problem admitting that I'm wrong.[/quote]
Dude. Dude. Duuuuuuuude. You believe it is OK for a neurosurgeon to smoke a big fat joint before he performs surgery on your BRAIN. Christ, it's not like it is a paired organ like your kidneys or your testicles. Hell, we fuck up one of your balls...we get you a [url="http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html"]Neuticle[/url] and no one can tell the difference. You've got one brain and it is not OK for a neurosurgeon to smoke a joint before he does surgery on it. If you believe it is OK; that's not right field. That's not center field. That's not left-center field for all you softball aficionados. That's so far left field, you might be in foul territory. Shit, you might be up in the stands with that one.

The comment about 'alcohol being the only drug which inhibits brain function,' nearly made me squirt coffee through my nose it was so damn funny. Start this conversation again with another medical professional and repeat that same statement and this is what will happen: They'll continue to give you a vacant look, nod their head occasionally in the affirmative, and verbalize, "Mmm humph, mmm humph," as they go over their grocery list in their head because they've stopped taking you seriously. Even the ones who are members of NORML.

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']That strictly, yes. But you're right, those wily University professors, always trying to score free weed from the man.[/quote]
[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']I don't have a problem with the government regulating who they give it out to, I have a problem with the repeated history of underhanded, back-door attempts to squash Marijuana, i.e. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, or saying that researchers can get it from the government and then putting them through the run-around.[/quote]
In November 2007, you were sure the government didn't provide marijuana for research.
In November 2007, you were sure no controlled, clinical studies of marijuana had been conducted with humans.
In December 2007, you're upset about how strictly the government controls the marijuana (which they didn't hand out for more than 3 decades) and the run around researcher are put through in order to conduct marijuana research (which has never occurred.)

Oh, for fuck's sake.

How many marijuana research applications did the government receive last year? How many were approved? How many were rejected? What is the average time it takes for government approval once the application process starts? You don't know any of this. That won't stop you from making uneducated statements. What did I write about credibility and accuracy and...oh, fuck it.

Of course you have a problem with the government regulating who receives the research marijuana. Does this look familiar?

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']Why not tests on the effects of smoking marijuana and driving? Why not the effects of smoking marijuana and then doing cognitive tests? Why not the effects of marijuana and social relations. Why? Would it be because they may find that it's not that bad?[/quote]

A study of the effects of marijuana on driving? Congnitive testing? Check and check; the National Institute of Health has this information (you don't believe it.) Social interaction? Check; recently conducted in other countries and as I quoted from the Lancet previously, may lead to an increased risk of psychotic behavior.

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']I'm not personally interested in marijuana being a medicine, to be completely honest.[/quote]
No shit?

What you want is research that will help legalize marijuana so you can walk down the street smoking a joint and not be hassled by the Man.

That's really what is important.

Not a cannabis extract used as a medicine, which won't get you high. What good is that bullshit? Might as well smoke the fucking stems in that case.

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']It's a very small group of people who would ever use marijuana medically, and to make that the focus of ALL marijuana research is misguided.[/quote]

[url="http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r061115.htm?s_cid=mediarel_r061115_x"]CDC report on Pain[/url]

[quote]One in four U.S. adults say they suffered a day-long bout of pain in the past month, and [b]one in 10 say the pain lasted a year or more[/b], according to the government's annual, comprehensive report of Americans' health, Health United States, 2006, released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics.[/quote]

One in 10...that's 30 million people in the US alone who could benefit from a drug to treat chronic pain. Misguided? Unfuckingbelivevable.

I dare you to put a rock in your right shoe and keep it there for one year. In December 2008, tell me what you would be willing to do to get that god damn rock out of your shoe. That's a small taste of chronic pain, my friend. A very small fuckin' taste. At least you would have HOPE you could get rid of the rock at some point.

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614398' date='Dec 27 2007, 03:43 PM']I know, and because of that, in my opinion, you can't claim to scientifically know the effects of recreational drug use.[/quote]

I could give you links to the National Institute of Health who claim they have the research showing the effects of recreational drug use. We both know that would be a waste of my time. You've already rejected that research; not because you've read it and made a decision for yourself, but because some other yahoo told you the conclusions are no good. Or that scientists and doctors have to take the drugs themselves in order to have credibility within the pothead community. Or that all research and testing conducted with animal models isn't applicable. Where do you think testing is done with medicines before human trials? Animals. Why can't I prescribe quinolones (a class of antibiotics) to kids under 18? Because of a study conducted with Beagle puppies demonstrated harmful effects on their cartilage, that's why. Hell, by your reasoning if I conducted a study of the devastating effects of chainsaws on chinchillas and concluded using chainsaws on humans would be harmful to their health based upon my animal model; you would reject that conclusion as 'unscientific.'

[CTBengalsFan]

From the articles, I supposedly never read....

[quote]4% to 9% of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence. Although some marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of alcohol and nicotine, and the abstinence syndrome is less severe.4,188,190 Like other drugs, dependence is more likely to occur in individuals with co-morbid psychiatric conditions.[/quote]

I'm going to go ahead and say out of all drugs, Marijuana is the lowest, having only 4-9% qualify for substance dependences

[quote]Data on drug use progression and the view that marijuana is a "gateway" drug pertain to nonmedical use. However, "present data on drug use progression neither support nor refute the suggestions that medical availability [of marijuana] would increase drug abuse."[/quote]

LOL, gateway drug, hold on let me say it again, LOL

[quote]In addition to effects attributable to THC, the chronic effects of marijuana smoke are of perhaps greater concern than marijuana’s acute safety profile. Like tobacco, chronic marijuana smoking is associated with lung damage, increased symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and[b] possibly increased risk of lung cancer.[/b][/quote]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6052501729.html[/url]
increased lung cancer risk, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html[/url]

[quote]While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.[/quote]

How's that touch you down in your special spot?

OH well, back to AMA:

[quote]however, there is no conclusive evidence that consumption of cannabinoids impairs human immune function, and some evidence suggests that cannabinoids [u]exert anti-tumor effects in human cancer cell lines[/u][/quote]

WHooooooooa, duuuuuuuuuuuuude, trip on that brah!!!



Ok, the second "article" you wanted me to read, which I clicked on at the time (
[url="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/marijuana.html"]The National Institute of Health[/url]), doesn't bring you to an article, so I'm not even sure to which study you're referring

And, the third, [url="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html"]The Food and Drug Administration[/url] tells me that the FDA thinks marijuana is bad and not a medicine, which really turned my world upside down, really.


So yea, keep saying I just ignored those links!

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote]may lead to an increased risk of psychotic behavior.[/quote]

this one also made me LOL

I'm gonna go ahead and throw something out there I'm sure will get me absolutely roasted by you and the like, but fuck it, it's an internet message board right?

I went to my internship stoned... often. I'd take a shower, smoke a bowl, eat a breakfast, and then head to work. Then since we had an hour break, occasionally I'd smoke a bowl after I got out for lunch, go eat, take the rest of the hour and head back. Surely, after such DRUG ABUSE in such a harmful pattern of behavior (WHAT KIND OF JUNKIE NEEDS TO GET HIGH BEFORE WORKING WTFF?!?!! [right?]), they must have noticed? Surely, it must have affected my performance, right?

[img]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k206/tseng207/eval1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k206/tseng207/eval2.jpg[/img]

There's no way they could be referring to someone, who, on most days, was high??? I mean, I must have been psychotic in my interactions with people. Let's keep in mind, the youngest person I worked with was 36, so I wasn't working with peers who wouldn't care.

So yea, when I hear studies that say marijuana smoking diminishes cognitive capability, coordination, and apparently causes psychosis, I tend to scoff. Sorry, I like RL experience over someone telling me how things are.

And before it happens, NO, I don't think it was a good idea to do that, NO, I don't recommend anyone else do that, NO, I will not do that [i]WHEN[/i] they hire me full time.

Why don't you ask Rush Limbaugh if it's possible to carry on in your job with a heavy opiate addiction?

[img]http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/A/limbaugh_oxycontin.jpg[/img]

[CTBengalsFan]

Since we're so in love with studies here:

[url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm"]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm[/url]
A Dutch (because the US would NEVER let this test be done here, obviously) study on the effects of marijuana smoking and driving:

[quote]Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. The first was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 µg/kg, and placebo. They performed a 22-km road tracking test beginning 30 and 90 minutes after smoking. Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking. The second study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. Subjects (16) were treated with the same THC doses as before. They performed a 64-km road tracking test preceded and followed by 16-km car following tests. Results confirmed those of the previous study. [b]Car following performance was only slightly impaired.[/b] The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 µg/kg THC and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. [b]THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had.[/b] These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 µg/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.[/quote]

[quote]Thus, there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana.[/quote]

[quote]Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.[/quote]

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614966' date='Dec 29 2007, 01:38 AM']From the articles, I supposedly never read....



I'm going to go ahead and say out of all drugs, Marijuana is the lowest, having only 4-9% qualify for substance dependences



LOL, gateway drug, hold on let me say it again, LOL



[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6052501729.html[/url]
increased lung cancer risk, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html[/url]



How's that touch you down in your special spot?

OH well, back to AMA:



WHooooooooa, duuuuuuuuuuuuude, trip on that brah!!!



Ok, the second "article" you wanted me to read, which I clicked on at the time (
[url="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/marijuana.html"]The National Institute of Health[/url]), doesn't bring you to an article, so I'm not even sure to which study you're referring

And, the third, [url="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html"]The Food and Drug Administration[/url] tells me that the FDA thinks marijuana is bad and not a medicine, which really turned my world upside down, really.


So yea, keep saying I just ignored those links![/quote]

WHOA!!!!

DID I ACTUALLY GIVE YOU AN ARTICLE FROM THE AMA THAT WAS FAIR AND BALANCED?

AN ORGANIZATION THAT WASN'T PUSHING A "POT IS THE DEVILWEED" HYSTERIA OR A "LEGALIZE IT" AGENDA?

AN ARTICLE THAT MADE A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO SEPERATE FACT FROM FICTION?

NOW WHY THE FUCK DO THINK I'D DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

WHY THE FUCK WOULD I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK FOR YOURSELF?

WHY THE FUCK WOULD I PROVIDE YOU WITH AN ARTICLE CONTAINING A LOT TO THE INFORMATION YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR?

WHY?

And don't pretend like you read that article with an open mind. Don't. You cherry picked it. Admit it.

Now as to the second link, the one that doesn't bring you to an article. I want you to skim down until you see "[b]START HERE[/b]" in big, bold letters...cause that's usually the beginning...right beneath that you'll see a link..."Marijuana." Use your mouse to move your cursor until it is on top on that link. Then I want you to left click your mouse one time. You should have a window open with an article. Once you are done reading that window of information. You click on the large red X in the upper right hand corner to make it magically disappear. Now you know how to continue, Brett...best suited for Finance, Procurement, Materials. What's a drug dealer if not a specialist in finance, procurement, and materials?

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614973' date='Dec 29 2007, 02:59 AM']WHOA!!!!

DID I ACTUALLY GIVE YOU AN ARTICLE FROM THE AMA THAT WAS FAIR AND BALANCED?

AN ORGANIZATION THAT WASN'T PUSHING A "POT IS THE DEVILWEED" HYSTERIA OR A "LEGALIZE IT" AGENDA?

AN ARTICLE THAT MADE A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO SEPERATE FACT FROM FICTION?

NOW WHY THE FUCK DO THINK I'D DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

WHY THE FUCK WOULD I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK FOR YOURSELF?

WHY THE FUCK WOULD I PROVIDE YOU WITH AN ARTICLE CONTAINING A LOT TO THE INFORMATION YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR?

WHY?

And don't pretend like you read that article with an open mind. Don't. You cherry picked it. Admit it.[/quote]

I cherry picked it! I feel so naughty.

[quote]Now as to the second link, the one that doesn't bring you to an article. I want you to skim down until you see "[b]START HERE[/b]" in big, bold letters...cause that's usually the beginning...right beneath that you'll see a link..."Marijuana." Use your mouse to move your cursor until it is on top on that link. Then I want you to left click your mouse one time. You should have a window open with an article. Once you are done reading that window of information. You click on the large red X in the upper right hand corner to make it magically disappear. Now you know how to continue, Brett...best suited for Finance, Procurement, Materials. What's a drug dealer if not a specialist in finance, procurement, and materials?[/quote]

Derr.... did you ever think of just posting that link instead of the one before it (which was a page FULL of links) and then assume I'd know which one you wanted me to read without you actually explicitly stating it?
[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html"]http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html[/url]

whoa that was hard

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614972' date='Dec 29 2007, 02:41 AM']Since we're so in love with studies here:

[url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm"]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm[/url]
A Dutch (because the US would NEVER let this test be done here, obviously) study on the effects of marijuana smoking and driving:[/quote]
Maybe you should read the entire article instead of cherry picking little snippets.

You might have noticed this:

[quote]Marijuana and placebo marijuana cigarettes were supplied by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.[/quote]

More of that fictitious weed our government doesn't give out to conduct clinical research in humans that never really happened.

Fucking business majors.

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614974' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:08 AM']I cherry picked it! I feel so naughty.



Derr.... did you ever think of just posting that link instead of the one before it (which was a page FULL of links) and then assume I'd know which one you wanted me to read without you actually explicitly stating it?
[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html"]http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html[/url]

whoa that was hard[/quote]
You're absolutely right. I should have given you explicit instructions. Instead of thinking you could figure it out on your own.

Also, I thought you might be interested in reading as much as you could and you would investigate the links on your own. Obviously, I was wrong...on both counts.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614975' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:11 AM']Maybe you should read the entire article instead of cherry picking little snippets.

You might have noticed this:



More of that fictitious weed our government does give out to conduct clinical research in humans that never really happened.

Fucking business majors.[/quote]

Not for testing (like that) in the US however. And I knew it was US supplied weed, that study is old, and something I was aware of long ago. In the study, they actually smoke the pot. Do you know of any American studies where they actually smoke pot? I'm not sure that there are any like that. That's an honest question.

Also, think the study made headlines back here? You know, since the US government funded it? I'M GUESSING<<<< (notice my keyword), no.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614976' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:14 AM']You're absolutely right. I should have given you explicit instructions. Instead of thinking you could figure it out on your own.

Also, I thought you might be interested in reading as much as you could and you would investigate the links on your own. Obviously, I was wrong...on both counts.[/quote]

When you say I have 3 articles I want you to read, then post 3 links, I'm led to believe that those 3 links will lead to the 3 articles you'd like me to read. I know, crazy thinking. So when you post a link that is a page FULL links, I wonder to myself, "did he post the wrong link?" and move on. I've done far more reading on this subject than you seem to think I have, both in my spare time, and during study, so pardon me if I didn't read every single link your holiness provided me.

EDIT: I'm not a business major, I'm an Econ major, which is separate from the business school. I just proved you wrong, how can you be credible to me anymore? You obviously took NO time to look up whether Economics falls under the business school at UConn. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote]Three times a day, a neatly machine-rolled marijuana joint is delivered from a locked cabinet at San Francisco General Hospital to Patient No. 9. He closes the door to his small white room, stuffs a towel under the door and lights a match. A nurse watches through a window.

Following strict research protocol, he inhales for five seconds, holds for 10, then releases. He waits 45 seconds. The exercise is repeated 10 times.[/quote]

[url="http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/ucsfnews.html"]The Science of Medical Marijuana[/url]

This is old information and I cannot vouch for its reputation and accuracy the same as the AMA information.

But, you should know stuff like this since it is so near and dear to your heart.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote]Pot used through ages, But scientific documentation lacking
Marijuana has been used as a recreational, ceremonial and therapeutic substance throughout history. But neither risks nor benefits have been scientifically documented.

``[b]The policy cart has tended to pull the scientific horse with respect to marijuana[/b],'' said Dr. David Smith, founder and medical director of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics Inc.[/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]

This is changing, I can see that now, but if you think that it's completely changed to complete objectivity, I still have reservations. Remember that the government has to approve of the study before they can do it, and they often make them change it. They couldn't make them change it... to further their own agenda... could they?

[CTBengalsFan]

Oh, what a coincidence, that study is the one from our man Abrams.

[quote]Abrams went back to the drawing board, redesigned the study -- and finally, last October, got the federal approval and funding to proceed.[/quote]

He petitioned in 1992, it took 6 years. I'd that call that a run-around. You?

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614961' date='Dec 29 2007, 12:50 AM']What you want is research that will help legalize marijuana so you can walk down the street smoking a joint and not be hassled by the Man.[/quote]

Just to address this - I don't think you should be able to walk down the street smoking a joint for the same reason you're not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614980' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:30 AM'][img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]

This is changing, I can see that now, but if you think that it's completely changed to complete objectivity, I still have reservations.[/quote]
I don't recall suggesting that.

I recall suggesting you read the AMA summary which makes an honest attempt to seperate science fact from science fiction.

The National Institute of Health is a governmental agency and as such can be influenced by policy. The AMA isn't a governmental agency.

The AMA, the doctors it represents, and the allied health providers (including myself) who turn to them for information and guidance have a legal and ethical obligation to provide patients with accurate, unbiased information.

What is my motivation for lying to you? Maybe I enjoy jail? For my street cred and shit.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614983' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:39 AM']I don't recall suggesting that.[/quote]

Notice the word 'if'

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614982' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:36 AM']Oh, what a coincidence, that study is the one from our man Abrams.



He petitioned in 1992, it took 6 years. I'd that call that a run-around. You?[/quote]
The Abrams connection is funny.

Six years? For the government? It takes longer than that to get permission to scratch your ass in DC.

But seriously read [url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/nacda/marijuanastatement.html"]this.[/url]

It's from 1998, but it explains how to get the [i]shit[/i].

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='614982' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:36 AM']Oh, what a coincidence, that study is the one from our man Abrams.



He petitioned in 1992, it took 6 years. I'd that call that a run-around. You?



Just to address this - I don't think you should be able to walk down the street smoking a joint for the same reason [b]you're not allowed to walk down the street drinking a beer[/b][/quote]
You need to come to Savannah my friend.

Plastic To-Go Cups are the norm. And it's legal.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='614973' date='Dec 29 2007, 02:59 AM']Now you know how to continue, Brett...best suited for Finance, Procurement, Materials. What's a drug dealer if not a specialist in finance, procurement, and materials?[/quote]

Also this made me lol IRL

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

Hey Brett,

It's not good form to surreptitiously edit your posts or make additions after the fact so it seems like it's part of the original post.

Just make a new post or write "EDIT" like you did in post #336, but failed to do so in #338.

OK?

You're starting to remind me of another [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601773.html"]Brett[/url] I know.

[CTBengalsFan]

TBH, i just didnt want to make 8 posts in a row and look post-whorish

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[center][b][size=5]BOO YEAH[/size][/b][/center]






Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett, Brett....

It must be hard work; hard GOD DAMN work talking out your ass that much.

You a ventriloquist?

Can you talk out your ass while drinking water, too?

Impressive.

[LoyalFanInGA v2.0]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='615069' date='Dec 29 2007, 12:10 PM'][center]YOUR
AD
HERE[/center][/quote]
I'm going to go back later to fill in that last post with some of my brilliant bullshit later.

Anywho, maybe Abrams had to redesign the study because it was flawed initially. The applications are peer reviewed. Maybe the peers thought it needed tweaking? Because the studies' conclusions wouldn't be scientifically valuable? Or they were concerned the conclusions might be 'spun' for political purposes? Or the NIH didn't think his project was "in the public interest?" Maybe the government just didn't want US citizens tokin' on their stash which they give to other countries so their citizens can toke on it for other studies? Maybe they wanted to further their own agenda and selected peer reviewers who were the Associate Producers of Reefer Madness? (And maybe you should blame the 'liberal media' for not making a big deal out of those driving tests results and expose how the government has lied to us all these years? Shit, the Patriot's Spygate got more press.)

I don't know why it took 6 years. You don't know, either. Twenty-nine days ago, you claimed, "They don't do controlled studies on marijuana use, bottom line. The government does not give out marijuana for scientific research, this is a fact, this cannot be debated. All they can use is volunteers who state their drug use history or monkeys." Today you claimed, "And I knew it was US supplied weed, that study is old, and something I was aware of long ago." I'm confused and beginning to wonder if maybe I fried my brain during college?

As to Rush Limbaugh, have you listened to his show? I have. That mother fucker is definitely on dope! You'd have to be on dope to be that delusional. Poor example, Brett.

Abrams got his approval. He got his research marijuana. He did the studies with humans. He published his articles.

What's wrong with that?

[oldschooler]

I would like to be a test subject for the studies of effects of marijuana on humans.

Or being one of those cops that wear the mirrored glasses,
while standing right next to a big pile of burning marijuana
plants, would also be a great gig.

Is there a place I can fill out an application ?

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='615094' date='Dec 29 2007, 12:51 PM']I don't know why it took 6 years. You don't know, either. Twenty-nine days ago, you claimed, "They don't do controlled studies on marijuana use, bottom line. The government does not give out marijuana for scientific research, this is a fact, this cannot be debated. All they can use is volunteers who state their drug use history or monkeys." Today you claimed, "And I knew it was US supplied weed, that study is old, and something I was aware of long ago." I'm confused and beginning to wonder if maybe I fried my brain during college?[/quote]

Because in that example I knew of, they supplied it to a researcher at a University in the Netherlands... I was referring to US research.