OT: Everybody Must (not) Get Stoned

This is my intuition, so take it for what it's worth, but I think the reason Medical Science rejects Pot as a pain killer is because they do not know what to measure.

I suspect Pot takes our attention away from pain. The pain is reduced by its signal no longer being amongst the top priorities. You could say it is a distraction, but it is much more than that. It will reduce pain among certain conditions, and not all pain. But it is physically not addictive, and would seem a safer bet than many other products.

Medical Science does not want you to have 'fun' and does not measure 'fun'.

munk
 
I honesttogawd thought my generation would have legalized, legislated, taxed, and set up a distribution system for pot.

Not a great one, but certainly one of the disappointments of my age.

Pollution control was a matter of great concern and virtually disappeared into some vague interest by the occasional bureaucracy. A much bigger disappointment.

Racism looked like it was going to be dead. Instead, it is merely "don't ask, don't tell" matter for most and some nonsense called political correctness seems to have supplanted it as an non-issue.

It is almost beyond my comprehension that the matriarchal cycle of inner city societies still exists, and that children, families, and a huge segment of my society is given up for lost because they don't have political clout.

I am frequently stunned by political and cultural postures assumed by zealots who have infiltrated the culture.

And finally, corruption and power-seeking ruling a national agenda literally leaves me sick at heart.
 
The pain is reduced by its signal no longer being amongst the top priorities. You could say it is a distraction, but it is much more than that. It will reduce pain among certain conditions, and not all pain.
Click to expand...

This is in effect what any pain killer does, it interupts the signals to the brain by some method. It only validates the arguement. For some reason some people in our society believe that we are here to suffer. This is usually based in religous beliefs. I think we are here to create our own existance , we can make it hell or we can make it heaven it is our own choice. I do not think society should impose suffering especially on the sick imfirm or terminal, it isn't moral. There are some people who would rather deneigh terminal patients any medications , in to fulfill the belief that suffering is preferable. This is insane. I have read of examples of
hospice nurses and Pain control specialist being prosecuted for using perfectly legal drugs on terminally ill or chronic pain suffers. We should realize that these people that wish suffering for the many are a bit radical and maybe we shouldn't validate their
arguements by acknowledging them as reasonable people, Especially on this subject.

Perhaps I have seen too much human suffering because of drugs (including pot) to have an "open" mind on this subject.
Click to expand...

I think we have all seen this, I myself have lost friends to drugs( alcohol included) in one way or other. I have also lost many more to the automobile, and yet we do not ban that? I think it is important to realize that people do create their existanct and some will choose risky behaviours , that doesn't mean that all will. It gets down to weather we want a free society or one that controls every aspect. This will eventually play into cheese burgers as they are abused in this society as well. Too many cheeseburgers cause suffering ( obesity, heart problems, increased risk of cancer....) that could all be avoided. Which of us doesn't a realitive with heart problem at one time or other? I don't see legal cheese burger bans for heart patients and yet it does cost our society , just as drug addict would. Considering our soaring medical cost wouldn't this be a good idea?

To allow anyone with a problem such as chronic pain or a terminal diesease to suffer because someone on the other side of the equation has
a problem with self control is not a good trade off and it just isn't fair.Being terminal would suck bad enough and If I or anyone else wanted to a temporary vacation from that and live a little better for what little time they had left. Maybe not sit and suffer but be able to spend time with a family member or friend. How could that be sinful is beyond me. The big different is , One person is creating there own suffering and one the other side the person is just trying to make due with the lousy hand that life has dealt. That is a huge difference and one that should be noted.


The thought that the infirm should suffer for the self indulgent is not very palitable to me. I beliver that it demonstrates how conservativism can be radical and militant.
 
Yup.

Both my parents died of cancer. Both on heavy meds, towards the end, at least.

I would have been fully filling to cut a bloody swath through any person or groups that were willing for my family to suffer for no good reason.

John
 
brantoken said:
This is in effect what any pain killer does, it interupts the signals to the brain by some method. It only validates the arguement. For some reason some people in our society believe that we are here to suffer. This is usually based in religous beliefs. I think we are here to create our own existance , we can make it hell or we can make it heaven it is our own choice. I do not think society should impose suffering especially on the sick imfirm or terminal, it isn't moral. There are some people who would rather deneigh terminal patients any medications , in to fulfill the belief that suffering is preferable. This is insane. I have read of examples of
hospice nurses and Pain control specialist being prosecuted for using perfectly legal drugs on terminally ill or chronic pain suffers. We should realize that these people that wish suffering for the many are a bit radical and maybe we shouldn't validate their
arguements by acknowledging them as reasonable people, Especially on this subject.



I think we have all seen this, I myself have lost friends to drugs( alcohol included) in one way or other. I have also lost many more to the automobile, and yet we do not ban that? I think it is important to realize that people do create their existanct and some will choose risky behaviours , that doesn't mean that all will. It gets down to weather we want a free society or one that controls every aspect. This will eventually play into cheese burgers as they are abused in this society as well. Too many cheeseburgers cause suffering ( obesity, heart problems, increased risk of cancer....) that could all be avoided. Which of us doesn't a realitive with heart problem at one time or other? I don't see legal cheese burger bans for heart patients and yet it does cost our society , just as drug addict would. Considering our soaring medical cost wouldn't this be a good idea?

To allow anyone with a problem such as chronic pain or a terminal diesease to suffer because someone on the other side of the equation has
a problem with self control is not a good trade off and it just isn't fair.Being terminal would suck bad enough and If I or anyone else wanted to a temporary vacation from that and live a little better for what little time they had left. Maybe not sit and suffer but be able to spend time with a family member or friend. How could that be sinful is beyond me. The big different is , One person is creating there own suffering and one the other side the person is just trying to make due with the lousy hand that life has dealt. That is a huge difference and one that should be noted.


The thought that the infirm should suffer for the self indulgent is not very palitable to me. I beliver that it demonstrates how conservativism can be radical and militant.
Click to expand...

Good post Brantoken! Well said and thought out.

Thanks & Regards,

Norm
 
munk said:
This is my intuition, so take it for what it's worth, but I think the reason Medical Science rejects Pot as a pain killer is because they do not know what to measure.

I suspect Pot takes our attention away from pain. The pain is reduced by its signal no longer being amongst the top priorities. You could say it is a distraction, but it is much more than that. It will reduce pain among certain conditions, and not all pain. But it is physically not addictive, and would seem a safer bet than many other products.

Medical Science does not want you to have 'fun' and does not measure 'fun'.

munk
Click to expand...

Munk,

I agree 100%.

First the person who develops a device to actually measure pain will be a millionaire. In my line of work I see people with relatively little physical findings,(but some) in severe pain. While other people with herniated discs and stuff being only in minor pain. While some of this may be due to the potential for secondary gain, I honestly believe that some people are wired differently and experience much greater pain with less actual damage.

Where opiates tend to relieve pain, it seems pot, as you say makes one distracted from pain. This in a way may even be better. Many times people take opiates and then injure themselves further. With pot the pain is still there, so you know not to over extend, but it is pushed to the background IMO. Also with opiates they tap down your own bodies endorphins so if you stop the pain actually is worse than originally for a time.

On the other hand THC acts more like a traditional medicine as far as it's anti nausea and fever reducing potential.
 
This is in effect what any pain killer does, it interupts the signals to the brain by some method. It only validates the arguement.>>> Brantoken

Yes and no. I'm no chemist, but you guys ought to know that if it were as simple as that they'd have measured the pain relief from Pot by now. They can't measure it- or it's not much, is why they get away with saying it has no theraputic vaule as a pain killer. It does however, lower the pressure in the eyeballs for glaucoma patients.

And also- the opiates, upon which almost all pain medicines are based, (even to this day of modern medicine), reach receptors which seem to be in existence for no other reason then to respond to opium. Opiates actually send 'positive' messages, not merely blocking pain receptors.

Oh Firkin, Where Art Thou?

No, pot as a loose member of the hallucinogenic drugs, accomplishes pain relief by other routes modern medicine is not comfortable with. But unlike the hallucinagenics, Pot actually seems suited for certain kinds of pain relief, while no one would suggest dropping acid as a means to ease the pain of an extracted tooth!!! (Yes, I know some of you would! Or have.)

Anyway, we've had a lot of pro-legalization verbage here, and not much to the contrary. That's a shame, and I think it an error to dismiss the anti's glibly. At the heart of all of this, none of us want to see society dragged down by addiction. Next time someone puts down the anti druggers, just remember it's your son and daughter they do not wish to see die of an overdose.

What started all this? Oh yeah- the Feds trumping State's rights by a Pot ruling.

munk
 
Also, just to mention the wonderful qualities of hemp and its usefullness in clothing and bajillions of other things.

Along with this is the nightmare that modern cotton brings to the earth. I believe it is the most heavily poisoned plant/crop on the planet. Poison which then makes its way into the soil, rivers, fish, food, bloodstream.

I have a strong feeling the cotton industry does not want to see pot legalized either, and they have LOTS of $$$$$. But I don't know any specifics.

~ b
 
Why I don't like western medicine:

"On a scale of 1 to 10, how much pain are you in?"

"What do you mean? It hurts all the time."

"Well, how much does it hurt?"

"What do you mean? Its chronic pain. I can live with it, so its not a 10. or even a 9. But it hurts all the time."

"Umm. how much pain are you in?"

I think western medicine has a tendancy to treat symptoms and not the underlying condition. I know too many people who have been down that road and end up taking medication to treat the symptoms caused by other medications that treat the symptoms caused by....??? I know a few truly excellent western medicine practitioners but, in general, I have a STRONG dislike for the profession.

I made my personal beliefs on medical marijuana known in a past thread as well. I am sure at least some remember seeing it. :)
 
Thanks for bringing that up. Bamboo! We used to have our own hemp in the States, but pretty much import it now- or am I wrong? Hemp is a great product. The uses are wide. With our know-how and the raw product, I bet we'd have the stuff in places you'd never dream of.



munk
 
We do have to import hemp ... I believe that is law, and most comes from Canada. Crazy isn't it.

Before this thread I didn't know there was a synthetic form of THC. I suppose that would be good for people who can't stand smoking, but otherwise what is the point? Why use a synthetic when nature provides the perfect plant?

I don't think I'm alone when I say that all of the greed and corruption is really getting old in this world. It has been going on since day 1, but it is reaching ridiculous levels. Maybe we are more aware of it than before. I don't know. But I certainly don't feel like any of my decisions are shaping this country.

~ B
 
I had heard that, back in the '30s certain high power newspaper publishers who happened to own timber companies as well went on a propaganda spreading campaign to try and outlaw marijuana. The public intent was to scare the reading public into thinking that marijuana turned men into homicidal, sex crazed zombies (in particular, I have a reproduction of a 1930's newspaper insert that speaks of "the killer drug marihuana (sic)" that causes black men to rape and murder white women).

What I heard was that a new technique in harvesting hemp woud allow for 400% more production per acre with far more rapid regrowth than traditional timber. This was, as I was told, the private reasons for these individuals pushing for prohibition.

I suspect that this all is part of the truth as there are several other high power (lobbying power!) industries that surely had a stake in wanting hemp out of the picture. Cotton as Bamboo mentioned. As well, hemp oil could be used for a significant percentage of oil needs.

heck. even George Washington was a hemp farmer. Again, purely word of mouth, but I have heard that there is even circumstantial evidence to show that he seperated male and female seeds. That is a necessary requirement to growing marijuana with any thc % high enough to be "valuable" for smoking.

The Constitution was written on hemp. Our money used to be made from hemp.

I have no cohesiveness right now. Sorry.

A good book about the history of marijuana and hemp (again, so I am told!) is "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". I have been meaning to read it for awhile now but life tends to get in the way of my druthers sometimes.
 
As an additional aside, I was discussing this very topic with a few fellows out at my nursery yesterday.

I don't see this court decision as striking down medicinal marijuana per se. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that any decision other than the one made is no different then giving implied consent at the national level and- I think- the supreme court or anyone in the federal government just isn't ready to make that precedent. Yet.
 
NO one wants to see a society dragged down by its addictions.

Yeah? It already is. 70% of the population is overweight. There *does* seem to be minor memory impairment caused by long-term HEAVY marijuana use.

Compare that with the long-term effects of obesity. But, hey! Add another scoop of sugar and hydrogenated fat. It's legal, so it must be better for you. :barf: :(

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top