On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:42:42 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> People that claim that it's for pain medication? I don't see that.
>
>> But this medical reason for legalizing it sounds like a phoney excuse to me.
>
>
>
>I smoke weed every day. I am 67. I have never believed the medicinal claims for the weed. It's just a way of opening the door to legal recreational use.

So you're another one. Do some research... even in your previous post
to me you were talking about 'cannabis poisoning', FFS...


>It may be good for staving off or helping those with glaucoma. My belief is that all ingested foods or medicines have side effects, some so minor they are not noticed - others, such as antihistamines for allergy sufferers, strong enough to be noticed and marketed under labels like SleepEeze or Sominex.
>
>So I won't argue the medicinal benefits of weed. I doubt that it does anything for pain.

Despite all the evidence. Amazing.
Tell me it doesnt help with my pain... LOL.

> I don't care.

You don't care and yet at the same time you won't bother to check your
facts. But you have a firm opinion all the same.

> But it is sickening when people on either side of an argument feel they need to list benefits to the product that may not exist, just to get the product legalized.

How can you possibly say that. There is ample, legitimate peer
reviewed research from mainstream sources that plainly state that it
does work. It's all available for you to read. But you won't, will
you? because your mind is made up and you don't care (as you say).


>I guess maybe they had to do that. If some person comes out and says I'm full of it, that they use weed to stave off brutal headaches or nausea and get good result with it, that ultimately means nothing even if it's true for just that one person.
>
>See Gary, even when I'm on a particular side of the fence on an issue, no matter which side I'm on, I still hope to maintain some distance from the dispute so I can get a better view of teh bullshit coming from both sides. People who get into the "issues" are often people who love to argue, because it's a safe hobby. Safe for people with some education but no imagination who feel secure in arguments where they already know the responses they're going to get from the other side. If you step way from the fence and look down from above, you will side that both sides are full of crap and will resort to all manner of deceit in futile efforts to prove themselves correct.

Your the one who is full of crap. What you're actually doing is
exactly what you claim you're *not* doing in the above paragraph. Can
you not see that?

Je�us wrote:
Tommy Joe wrote:


> I smoke weed every day. I am 67. I have never believed the medicinal claims for the weed. It's just a way of opening the door to legal recreational use.

`

> So you're another one. Do some research... even in your previous post to me you were talking about 'cannabis poisoning', FFS...



I'm not going to argue. Just because I mentioned cannabis poisoning does not mean I believe it happened in the cited cases. A person can OD on many things, vitamin pills included. You're making this an issue, which is fine for many, but not for me.

If I mentioned cannabis poisoning, it was in reference to an article from Colorado where in the first week of legalization some guy killed his wife and himself after using edible weed. The anti weed crowd had a field day with it. It gave them some ammo.

The guy had used other drugs and was drunk as well, plus he was mentally ill. So, if I mentioned cannibas poisoning it was only if reference to that. I was not saying it's a big concern. Anyone who cannot monitor their intake of any substance is going to get hurt. You are putting words in my mouth and trying to put my honest opinions and statements into one camp or the other. I don't join camps.

TJ

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:24:12 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:

>Je�us wrote:
>Tommy Joe wrote:
>
>
>> I smoke weed every day. I am 67. I have never believed the medicinal claims for the weed. It's just a way of opening the door to legal recreational use.
>
>`
>
>> So you're another one. Do some research... even in your previous post to me you were talking about 'cannabis poisoning', FFS...
>
>
>
>I'm not going to argue. Just because I mentioned cannabis poisoning does not mean I believe it happened in the cited cases.

But it's never happened. Ever. Regardless of any case, cited or not.

> A person can OD on many things, vitamin pills included. You're making this an issue, which is fine for many, but not for me.

Yes, you can on vitamins. But you haven't explained how you can with
cannabis, because you can't.

>If I mentioned cannabis poisoning, it was in reference to an article from Colorado where in the first week of legalization some guy killed his wife and himself after using edible weed.

You have a different idea what 'poisoning' is to mine, that's all I
can say.

> The anti weed crowd had a field day with it. It gave them some ammo.
>The guy had used other drugs and was drunk as well, plus he was mentally ill. So, if I mentioned cannibas poisoning it was only if reference to that.

Yep, no doubt. Not clear on why you brought this up in the context of
our discussion when you already acknowledge it really wasn't cannabis
that caused this incident?

>I was not saying it's a big concern. Anyone who cannot monitor their intake of any substance is going to get hurt.

Indeed. And that includes food, too.

>You are putting words in my mouth and trying to put my honest opinions and statements into one camp or the other.


I'm not following you here, I don't understand what you're saying? How
am I putting words in your mouth? You are making statements and
opinions that fly in the face of pure facts - and yet you've said
previously you don't care about the facts. What or how else am I
supposed to respond?

>I don't join camps.

You keep on about this. I'm not interested, I don't care, and it isn't
relevant. It doesnt matter, as it's a side issue and doesnt alter
scientific facts.

Jeus wrote:

> Yep, no doubt. Not clear on why you brought this up in the context of our discussion when you already acknowledge it really wasn't cannabis that caused this incident?

> I was not saying it's a big concern. Anyone who cannot monitor their intake of any substance is going to get hurt.


Jeezus H Goddamn Shit-Eating Christ, why do you keep saying I said things I never said? Maybe I'm not the best writer in the world and maybe you could brush up on your reading as well. There must be a communications problem.. Maybe you want it that way. I don't know.

Yes, I mentioned an incident reported in the news (more than once), about someone ODing on edible cannabis - with deaths involved - which does mean I believed it word for word. I am able to read between the lines and am aware that headlines are designed to lure readers in.

It was a news article. A bunch of words. The truth delivered all packed up in lies. Two separate incidents of people dying from edible weed overdoses were mentioned - one guy who killed his wife and then committed suicide. The other one jumped off a building or something, can't recall exactly - doesn't matter.

After getting into the article a while they start to unleash more facts, such as mentioning that the guy who killed his wife and himself was also blasted out on booze and pills and had a history of mental illness. I never said I believed the article word for word. If you think I said that, you must be referring to a comment from someone else.

I'm sick of arguing. I never said pot could not be good for some people's ailments. I said, as did Gary and a few others in this thread, that examples of weed's medicinal benefits have been and continue to be over-stated by the pro marijuana lobby. I never said I believed it is useless medicincally, only that it is over-stated. And I still believe that regardless or your issues or those of some other individual you know or others you may read about.

I would prefer to see it legalized period, without the medicinal aspect being promoted all the time. It is only my opinion - I admitted that - and so what, my opinion is as good as that of the 'experts' who oddly are never in agreement and can be bought by attorneys on both sides of the argument. But if it helps one person, that's good enough for me. Let them use it on that basis. As for me, I don't need a bunch of reasons.

The same thing applies to capital punishment. I am opposed to it but am not actively involved and will not be. The anti capital punishment crowd loves it every time an execution is botched as maybe that will sway the 'undecided' to their side, in the same way that those opposed to legal weed can't wait for people to die from pot edibles so they can jump all over it.

Some people claim to be opposed to capital punishment on the basis that an innocent person could get executed. But that person is not against capital punishment, in the same way that people who cry because a bunch of body bags are coming back from war. They are not really against the war, they're just bitching because it didn't end as fast as they thought it would. All these issues bring out the liar in people.

TJ