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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000
Alright. I'm tired of these stupid semantics arguments. Get a real argument otherwise I'm done talking to you.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's pretty easy not to enforce that law.
originally posted by: Lice000
lol another myth, that marijuana is some sort of panacea.
scienceblogs.com...
If you want to get an idea of just how crappy the evidence base is, take a look at the description of the methods and characterization of the studies:
The searches identified 23,754 hits (records) of which 505 were considered potentially relevant, based on title and abstract screening, and obtained as full-text studies. A total of 79 studies (6462 participants), available as 151 reports, were included; 3 studies (6 reports) were included in multiple indication categories (Figure 1). Thirty-four studies were parallel-group trials (4436 participants), and 45 were crossover trials (2026 participants). Four studies were available only as an abstract, a further 3 were available only as abstracts but with additional details available on trial registries including full results in one, and details of 2 trials (including full trial results) were available only as trial registry entries; all other trials were reported in full-length journal articles. Where reported, the proportion of participants who were men ranged from 0% to 100% (median, 50% [57 studies]), and the proportion of white participants ranged from 50% to 99% (median, 78% [18 studies]). Publication dates ranged from 1975 to 2015 (median, 2004 [with one-third of trials published before 1990]). Studies were conducted in a wide range of countries. A variety of cannabinoids were evaluated and compared with various different active comparators or placebos; most active comparators were included in the nausea and vomiting indication …
In other words, the evidence is reasonable, but by no means a slam dunk, given the methodological difficulties with the studies.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
What if you do both 1 and 2 because you don't have the ability to do 3?
Need I remind you that these draconian drug laws were started under Republicans?
And that's my point--I don't see anything changing in the war on drugs any time soon with the Ping-Pong way that we choose presidents in the two main parties, and it's disappointing, because neither truly cares about the negatives of the drug war unless in might get them more votes.