OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/health/21marijuana.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=8e9d2dc5bc070645&hp=&ex=1145592000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin Gee... what a shocker. Just thought I'd post this for a few of you. Damn it... sorry, I meant to post this in the 'Tailgate'. Mods, pls move. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakinandpeakin Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I just figured you posted it here so the Cowboys and their fans would know that marijuana won't help them after the Skins beat them twice next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 I just figured you posted it here so the Cowboys and their fans would know that marijuana won't help them after the Skins beat them twice next season. :laugh: Ok, keep it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yes now its appropriate for this forum after relating it to the Cowboys. Where are Erik Williams and Nate Newton when you need them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Tailgate in 3....2....1.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Like that's going to stop anybody from smoking weed. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 This will be interesting...maybe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Some scientists and legislators said the agency's statement about marijuana demonstrated that politics had trumped science. "Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the F.D.A. making pronouncements that seem to be driven more by ideology than by science," said Dr. Jerry Avorn, a medical professor at Harvard Medical School this article is retarded. the fda, which does not research marijuana itself i don't believe, is catering to politicians. nice try, oakton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 this article is retarded. the fda, which does not research marijuana itself i don't believe, is catering to politicians. nice try, oakton. BINGO. . . So let me see, Bush appointed politicians do no research on their own, and they contradict research that was done by actual scientists. . .yep, there ya have it, republicanism in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 BINGO. . . So let me see, Bush appointed politicians do no research on their own, and they contradict research that was done by actual scientists. . .yep, there ya have it, republicanism in a nutshell. when it comes to this topic, it's politicianism, not just repulicanism. maybe you can refute that? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Gee, and I would've thought the current administration wouldn't be so closed-minded about drugs. For some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."... The Food and Drug Administration's statement said state initiatives that legalize marijuana use were "inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the F.D.A. approval process." But scientists who study the medical use of marijuana said in interviews that the federal government had actively discouraged research. Lyle E. Craker, a professor in the division of plant and soil sciences at the University of Massachusetts, said he submitted an application to the D.E.A. in 2001 to grow a small patch of marijuana to be used for research because government-approved marijuana, grown in Mississippi, was of poor quality. In 2004, the drug enforcement agency turned Dr. Craker down. He appealed and is awaiting a judge's ruling. "The reason there's no good evidence is that they don't want an honest trial," Dr. Craker said. Emphasis mine, of course. The fact that research is being discouraged clearly implies that the expected outcome of investigation into marijuana's medicinal value will be information undermining the government's official position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Should I trust doctors and scientists, or bureaucrats? Hmmmm tough decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Swing and a miss. The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting." (emphasis added)My money is firmly on the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences over FDA on this one for sure. Please note that NAS is clearly more interested in science, not politics. They are not some liberal fringe group ... this is the same organization that came out with firm scientific position papers that mold personal injury claims for cancer, birth defects et c were not scientifically supported. If the US Chamber of Commerce can rely upon this group as being the font of wisdom on mold health impacts, I would believe them on the marijuana question over FDA. Edit: OMG, dfizto highlighted the exact same section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankbones Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 As someone who has gone through chemo and experienced what marijuana can do to help curb the side effects of those heinous drugs, I really don't understand your glee in posting this Oakton. Have you ever been through chemo? Do you have glaucoma? If not, do us all a favor and kiss my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Wow - talk about your all-time backfires. Way to Oakton!! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Gee, and I would've thought the current administration wouldn't be so closed-minded about drugs. For some reason. You mean the same administration that wants women to think that having an abortion will increase their odds of getting breast cancer? Yeah, it shocks me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Not that I ever doubted the medical benefits of marijuana, but it was completely confirmed for me when my sister was battling cancer and it was clear that marijuana helped her get through the chemo. Her doctor actually advised her that marijuana really worked and that the synthetic THC did not, off the record of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Not that I ever doubted the medical benefits of marijuana, but it was completely confirmed for me when my sister was battling cancer and it was clear that marijuana helped her get through the chemo. Her doctor actually advised her that marijuana really worked and that the synthetic THC did not, off the record of course. STFU with that liberal propaganda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 As someone who has gone through chemo and experienced what marijuana can do to help curb the side effects of those heinous drugs, I really don't understand your glee in posting this Oakton. Have you ever been through chemo? Do you have glaucoma? If not, do us all a favor and kiss my ass. You too! Hippie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 So what are the medical benefits from pain-killers? Get you high as a kite so you feel better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Wow - talk about your all-time backfires. Way to Oakton!! :laugh: I was thinking the same thing. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I didn't even read the article and I knew it was bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Wow - talk about your all-time backfires. Way to Oakton!! :laugh: Where is Oakton now? I guess he is done with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBleedBurgundy&Gold1369225669 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 His board name alone makes me sick. How the hell could you keep that name.Bush fan?lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.