Not a doctor, then. Glad we got that cleared up. Everyone pays taxes, and the decision to care for the entire population's health was made a very long time ago - long before I was born. So, as everyone pays tax and everyone gets health care if they need it, your point is nullified in any debate you wish to have on this topic, ever. Not firing any shots across the bow, but it's hard to debate certain points with you due to forum rules on politics. I'm not sure I can even address your concerns without slipping into politics regarding terms like an 'anarchy' or, 'nanny' state. So....more money to research it needs to be sent to medical professionals, to conduct proper research in this area? Surely that makes more sense than self-medication?
you don't need to be a doctor to know how things work. the medical books that doctors pay to be taught to put in practice can be read by anyone, the medical journals, trial data, studies and research are all available to those who want them Radiotherapy is far less invasive than chemo and has a higher success rate in comparison with far reduced deaths caused by secondary infections - which are contributed to the chemo utterly destroying the immune system. It is also safer for the people caring for you as radiotherapy as a targetted treatment does not end up making you dangerous to them, the family members of a chemo patient have a heightened risk of developing not only cancers themselves but suffering fertility and pituatary hormone irregulations which can significantly alter their physical and mental health.
I believe in freedom of choice. Personally I love the stuff. I've consumed cannabis almost every day, in one way or another, for nearly 30 years and enjoy using it to relax after working all day. I gave up smoking it a few years ago and bought a vapouriser instead I think it should be decriminalised for all, but I don't think it would make much difference to me either way.
This has nothing to do with my point. There are those that want it legalised in ALL forms, just because they want to giggle about and eat pizza all the live long day. SOME of those people, are using the 'medical argument' to rationalise (not justify) them using it. Can you please understand my point and stop me from posting the same thing, it is getting quite boring.
Too black and white. People can smoke if it's legal in their state. Period. End. What (you) one person thinks doesn't make that opinion a fact. People these days don't realize that.
Why do you care if people giggle and eat pizza? By the sound of your posts, you can use a few giggles. I've never heard a story about a guy on weed that smoked, beat his wife and kids, blacked out, and woke up with no memory of it. That's the very legal alcohol that does that. Weed does what you said, it makes people giggle and eat. Where's the harm? There is none. You sound like you have a stick up your ass. Fortunately, weed also is showing health benefits for things like depression, pain, and more. How or why it becomes legal is a dumb argument. Legal is legal. Alcohol was illegal for a time and has ZERO health benefits. Why not rant off on that?
My point isn't nullified by your claim that because taxes pay for your health care you get it for free. It's hard to debate points with me, because I am not stupid and your posts are clearly based on nothing but your own personal feelings. And again you insist on claiming the every one and I mean EVERYONE WHO USES IS SELF-MEDICATING. I assume you make that exact same argument for ANY substance, including candy one eats for pleasure right? IMO, you are just using this as yet another troll topic as your arguments make zero sense philosophically or morally. And that, nullifies anything you argue on this topic. And, everyone else can read that your arguments are unfounded. No rules here are preventing you from arguing honestly now, right? Pfffffit...SSDD from you and that will never change.
Then I'll make it simple and generalise: people will rationalise more than justify, because they feel strongly about something. Textbook rationalisation. I always pay attention to a debate, but this is not a debate: SOME people rationalise their personal usage of an illegal drug, and will find anything they can to support their position. Not all, just some. Those are the ones I do not like, because they are using my condition as a proponent of their argument, which is nothing more than to act like muppets. BTW I pay taxes too, quite a lot of tax in fact!
So many words over something so simple. If you like to smoke, then smoke. If you don't then don't. I wouldn't mind it being legal, but its illegality here hasn't stopped me. There are fascinating medical possibilities, but i am sure there are many such plants with undiscovered medicinal properties. Even if there are none....i still like smoking it.
You never fail to provide irony I don't think I've ever seen someone that is more self unaware than you.
The problem is that medical professionals do not do research on remedies that can not be patented. Considering that there was never a valid reason to ban marijuana to begin with, they should not need to argue at all.
They do research, and they get a lot of funding to do it. Drug discovery and research into aliments can overlap, but they also run independently. Yet, their rationalisation exists and I find it disgusting.
True, but I don't really smoke a lot these days. Now that Oklahoma has killer weed when I do smoke I get high as hell! Quantum Break's style, music, action, and insane time shifting graphics are multiplied by 10!
