It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Cannabis linked to mental illness risk

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
You have obviously confused me with someone else, considering I am a Swiss national, don't drink, smoke or make up excuses to cripple myself and waste my potential.


Sorry to break it to ya, but not everyone in the world is a swiss national. Believe it or not but there are places on this earth that do (somewhat) still believe in personal responsibility. Maybe in your society there are plenty of people living off of the state, whose only intention is to milk said state for all benifits available.....but that is not the case everywhere...


You have chosen to be a slave.


Some of us could argue that it is in fact you who have chosen to be a slave, due to your ill-informed opinions on the negative aspects of cannabis, which you seem to just mimic like some parrot. Who then is the slave? You with your enlighteend opinions, or those with the experience to justify their position?


I have chosen freedom from dependencies.

You lose...


Yet you have sworn absolute allegiance to the status quo, once again with your ill informed, and racially biased opinions towards cannabis. ( even though I will admit that at least you did lump alchohol in with cannabis unlike many here. So even if your opinion is ill informed, at least I can admit that you are consistent )



Originally posted by Regenmacher
Your are incapable of addressing the damage you have done to your's and mankind's potential when your in a drug dependent state of mind. That's like asking an insane person to diagnose himself. Non sequitur!


The only "Non -Sequitur" here is your faulty assumption that because someone chooses to indulge in mind altering substances then they automatically by default resort to beeing a "feeder" as you so compasionately described them. Sorry sir but THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW!


Originally posted by Regenmacher
The system wants you to be a drughead, your are easier to control, manage and no threat to the power structure.

Uh-huh and I am Lord Byron too. Go fool yourself, I am not blind.



I am confused here, please help me with this...So if I understand you correctly, the "system" wants people on intoxicants so that they are that much easier to manipulate yeah?

Well then tell me why the "system" is not actually pushing these substances on peoples as opposed to doing everything in their power to make sure that people do NOT indulge?

If what you say is correct, then logic would dictate that the system would want people to indulge, no? Seeing that this is not the case , then I would like to know, why this is?

Wait let me guess, it's reverse psychology on a mass scale right? Tell people to not do something and they will inevitabely do it, thus eventually falling right into the plan?...please.

I can understand, and even respect your personal decision to not indulge in mind altering substances, but that does not excuse your sanctimonious diatribe degrading all those that choose to do so.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
mental illness stems from many things and not just the use of a plant.i really dont buy the study besides most people who are ill it can be traced back to genetics and some kind of family dna passing.you either have the blockers in the brain to stop the reaction or you remain ill until chemical drugs... stops it.even smoking has good areas to help mental illness.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Funny how only the fabricated negatives of cannabis are newsworthy in the U.S. Funny how since the 70's, the U.S. government knew cannabis, aside from many other medicinal uses, has been found to inhibit the growth factor used by brain tumors to create their own blood vessels allowing them to grow.



Their study showed that cannabinoids inhibited genes needed for the production of vascular growth factor (VEGF) in laboratory mice with glioma brain tumors and two patients with late-stage glioblastoma multiforme, a form of brain cancer.

my.webmd.com...




The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.

Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.

The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

www.alternet.org...


Funny how marijuana is considered a class 1 narcotic, meaning it has NO medicinal value whatsoever, and a high chance of abuse.

Opiates (vicodin, oxycontin) and coc aine are class 2, meaning they have recognized medicinal value but also a high chance of abuse.

It is classed as such only because marijuana is the only drug which patients can easily make in their own home, besides say crystal meth which of course has no medicinal value other than eliminating the need for sleep, and making people insane, and is very dangerous to make. The pharmaceutical companies would lose billions, not only because they couldn't sell marijuana when it's so easy to grow, but also because the use of many other marketed drugs would plummet. Not to mention alcohol and tobacco use would also likely plummet. All these major companies are big contributors to the government. Not to mention all the revenue generated by busting people for marijuana, seizures, fines, and funding for the "war on drugs".

Marijuana as it stands is a cash cow for the government, regardless how obvious it is to most that it is much less harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and manufactured drugs. The government will continue to lie, and pay scientists to fabricate negative results.

Back to the brain tumor study, I recently had CyberKnife radiosurgery on a benign (non-cancerous), lower cranial nerve tumor, a procedure that kills the tumor without brain surgery. Since it's not cancer, it just shrinks up and that's the end of it. But my radiation oncologist said before the procedure that the tumor was already dying in the middle, due to a poor blood supply. I'll just leave it at that.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Regen
Your attitude wouldn't get you very far in real life. Certainly not in a free and democratic worls anyhow. Your attitudes would have made you very popular in certain German fringe groups just before the outset of WW2. They shared your opinions down the line, those..hmm..groups.


Yeah excuses are like flies in a barn , everyone has plenty.

Your principle point was to light a noxious weed on fire and inhale levels of hydrogen cyanide, volatile phenols, aldehydes, and carbon monoxide for the sake of temporal pleasure and call that sane....aw well so more for your logic too.


[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Well then tell me why the "system" is not actually pushing these substances on peoples as opposed to doing everything in their power to make sure that people do NOT indulge?


Keyword is marketing: control the production and you control the price which equates to increase revenues for government agencies. I could see them criminalizing tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and high-fat foods too, but for now we have a lot of legal hypocrisy. Periods of war are not known for fostering the health of civil liberties and that includes WOD (60 percent of the inmates in federal prisons are incarcerated for drug offenses.) Why would the government legalize drugs if it forced them to account for siezed assets, and reduced the tax revenue. growth of the military, police and prison systems. War economy is a not free market economy.

Btw, I love to play advocatus diaboli.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Btw, I love to play advocatus diaboli.


Playing Devil's Advocate can be a worthy endeavor, that is if you can back it up with facts. I just finished reading all that has happened in this thread today and have come to the realization that you do NOT know what you are talking about. There is a huge difference between use and abuse/addiction. Anyone that counsils people with addiction would know that.

BTW, pot isn't addictive, however a person that just has to get high may use pot. They WILL use something else if they can't get their hands on their drug of choice. Can you see the difference?

OK, that being said, would you please stop baiting the other members with your invalid "tick-tock" references?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Maybe you didn't understand, and presumed to know when I do play it, in any case you'll never have the courtesy of knowing.

Use starts towards abuse, don't use and there's never a risk of abuse.

Pot is both pychology and biologically addictive, because it causes compulsive, uncontrollable drug craving, seeking, and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences. It changes metabolic functions and nueral synaptic pathways too.

You need to study the statiics of habitual drug users and save the "do more drugs"psuedo-psychology for someone else.

And I know that you don't know, so go read.



[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Use starts towards abuse, don't use and there never a risk of abuse.


You're serious aren't you? You have NO idea that there are determining factors that contribute to abuse. Your arguent is SO flawed that I honestly don't know where to start.


And I know that you don't know.


And this is where you are going wrong. You state your belief, not what is fact. I DO know, I've been dealing with this for almost 30 years and have done a great deal of reading on this topic. I work in a maximum securtiy institution and I counsel the inmates that will listen.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Ahh yeah right, you counsel and adocvate drug use for inmates. That must look nice in your 201 file, ehh?

My argument is flawed if you think one step doesn't start the journey...but that's not reality is it. Linear progression to an event is.

start------------use----------------abuse----------------jail

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Ahh yeah right, you counsel and adocvate drug use for inmates. That must look nice in your 201 file, ehh?

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]


Your further baiting is noted.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Your further baiting is noted.


Maybe you should concentrate on not being vague and define why you advocate marijuana use?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
My argument is flawed if you think one step doesn't start the journey...but that's not reality is it. Linear progression to an event is.

start------------use----------------abuse----------------jail

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]


Just caught your edit. OK, by using your logic there should be a WHOLE LOTTA JOBS availlable in the States. Seems like almost half of the country has smoked weed:

www.findarticles.com...

Damn, I should move to the States, job security with 150,000,000 people in jail.


BTW, I didn't say that I advocate drug use, I said counsel. One question and I don't mean this in a derogatory way, is English your first language?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by intrepid
Your further baiting is noted.


Maybe you should concentrate on not being vague and define why you advocate marijuana use?


I defined that in my last post. As for the bold, check this out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Specifically #'s 2 and 15.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Yeah well, advocating illegal behavior like using drugs is in violation of the TOS too, and these people that post pro-pot usage messages are asking for a lot of headaches if the live here in the states.

I'm trilingual, so you just don't like my stick and carrot method of operandi to wake people up is your main bone of contention? You want me to be touchy feely and consider feelings and assuage egos instead of being frank and to the point?

As for WOD and the penal system in the states it does nothing but increase a growing prison populace... rehabilition is a joke. The US needs damage control and that's not arresting potheads, marking them for life with a felony, and/or ripping them from their familes. There methods are far more draconian and bizarre than my simple tough love approach.www.narconon.org...

There's 1000's of prison jobs available and enforcement is selective.
As for inmates, 60% are in the federal system and 25% arein the state systems due to drug convicitons.

2,131,180 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov...



[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This thread is a touchy one

One cannot state their indevidual use of "drugs" or advocate such, so one is made to use inuendo or metaphores.

If one doesn't use specific incidets, their testimonials are thrown out.

?????
"drugs are bad m'kay" it doesn't work on me, I just won't talk about it.

MENSA doesn't ask, and I'm okay with them



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
FredT (moderator) gave a warning to refresher on the rules in this thread here


Originally posted by FredT
Heads Up

Since the first message did not take I will repeat it here (and if further violations persist, I will take stronger action so please pay attention)

While this is certainly an intersting topic and worth of debate here on ATS I need to remind all participants that discussion of drug use is not allowed in the forums per the Terms and Conditions of the site;



16.) Discussion of illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.


So on that note, please do not interject your personal use or those you know within the context of this debate.

Thanks
FredT



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
FredT (moderator) gave a warning to refresher on the rules in this thread here


Yes I know, great post imo. Where did I do anything that contravined what he said? I wouldn't do anything to interfere with another mod.

OK, still haven't gotten a reasonable answer to this:


Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Regenmacher
My argument is flawed if you think one step doesn't start the journey...but that's not reality is it. Linear progression to an event is.

start------------use----------------abuse----------------jail

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]


Just caught your edit. OK, by using your logic there should be a WHOLE LOTTA JOBS availlable in the States. Seems like almost half of the country has smoked weed:

www.findarticles.com...

Damn, I should move to the States, job security with 150,000,000 people in jail.


BTW, I didn't say that I advocate drug use, I said counsel.


Your contention is that if you start, it's abuse. Well, if that's a fact then half of America would be addicted, further with your logic, they would be in jail. NOT REALITY!

I contend that there's a HUGE difference between use and abuse.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Your contention is that if you start, it's abuse. Well, if that's a fact then half of America would be addicted, further with your logic, they would be in jail. NOT REALITY!
I contend that there's a HUGE difference between use and abuse.


I don't see much difference since the former promotes the later and it's highly subjective what constitutes abuse. They are but a few grams apart and depending on the chemical one use gets you hooked for abuse. Then we can also consider if your genetically predispostioned to be an addict, or if your self medicating to relieve an underlying mental illness or chemical imbalance. There's numorous factos involved and a fine delicate line between use and abuse. A fine line that most do fathom until it's too late.

No No, my contention is if you start it "can" lead to abuse, so why start?
I have seen little actual thought towards risk/reward factors in people that decide step over the line and decide to commit a felony in view of a moments pleasure. Same could be said for unprotected sex.

Smoke one joint, roll dice and may get hard time = nuts
(yeah the laws are nuts too, but they aren't changing anytime soon)

Now for my macroview idealisms hoagwash?

Ramifications of a psyctropic drug use on a global scale: 10,000+ years of war, mental illness, materialism and greed.

Ramifications for a non-psycotropic free world: we have never made it that far and that constitutes a trait of Class I level society.


[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   


I don't see much difference since the former promotes the later.and it's highly subjective what constitutes abuse. They are but a few grams apart.


All the more reason why you and the government should keep out of the business of legislating taste, you lack the sensory equipment necessary to judge the situation fairly. The government is a cold, monolithic entity devoid of grey, it's all black and white, or more appropriately, black and red.

Such philosophies are not suitable for governance, since they lend themselves too easily to ignorance and tyranny.



No No, my contention is if you start it "can" lead to abuse, so why start?


Because most often use does not lead to dependence, and the benefits outweigh the negatives in the subjective vision of the user. It's a personal decision, with real consequences. The behavior has its own set of repurcussions, there's no need to add your scorn, or the government's wrath, to that list.



I have seen little actual thought towards risk/reward factors in people that decide step over the line and decide to commit a felony in view of a moments pleasure. Same could be said for unprotected sex.


The risk/reward equation is sound and not lacking in merit. I use it every day to guide my hand. If I miscalculate, I will suffer, I will pay the price, not you. So why have you put so much thought into the character of my decision, when you neither profit nor suffer because of it?



Smoke one joint, roll dice and may get hard time = nuts
(yeah the laws are nuts too, but they aren't changing anytime soon)


State to state the laws vary. It's not draconian everywhere. That being said, the laws aren't changing because of people like you saying things like that. "They aren't going to change anytime soon." Of course nothing will change if you genuflect everytime the magistrate flexes his judicial muscle.

Keep bowing, and the man before you remains forever a king.

Laws won't change until people change them. Too many people are content to sneak around, or obey without question the ridiculous demands of the elite and their pet lawmakers.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by intrepid
Your contention is that if you start, it's abuse. Well, if that's a fact then half of America would be addicted, further with your logic, they would be in jail. NOT REALITY!
I contend that there's a HUGE difference between use and abuse.


I don't see much difference since the former promotes the later and it's highly subjective what constitutes abuse. They are but a few grams apart and depending on the chemical one use gets you hooked for abuse.


But not MOST people react this way. They are miles apart if you will do a little research.

I'm beginning to believe that you have had experience, yourself or someone close, that have had experience with this because all or nothing is one of the rules of addiction. Which is what you seem to be displaying. No insult, just what I've learned.

Edit: To add, if you want to read a book that really explains addiction, this is the one:

newdirections.msncadd.net...

[edit on 18-9-2005 by intrepid]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join