DEA Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

Bull####. So dumb they can't even describe it and just write it off "mysterious"!

Ps. New York Times isn't a study.

Thats called a genetic fallacy.

So you are disregarding a professor emeritus of a research university?

She wrote the article.

You can find her 27 year study that she sites in the article.

Oh and also she is explaining what OTHER researchers have said.

a reply to: imjackwww.m.webmd.com...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

Bull####. So dumb they can't even describe it and just write it off "mysterious"!

Ps. New York Times isn't a study.

Thats called a genetic fallacy.

So you are disregarding a professor emeritus of a research university?

She wrote the article.

You can find her 27 year study that she sites in the article.

Oh and also she is explaining what OTHER researchers have said.

I'm not taking the word of a hack that has the balls to write about ADD and not use the word "receptor", no. It's also totally spun. There are legitimate scruity, but the audacity of that propoganda speech is as bull#### as they come.

Doesn't mention the science: check
Compares it to drug use: check
SPECULATION: check

a reply to: luthier

This is useful thank you. I will keep it.

Again, I stress, cancer is weighted in risk. It mentions this in the article. Like you say, it's as bad or less bad than coffee.

The problem is there is direct relationship to smoking and cancer.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

Bull####. So dumb they can't even describe it and just write it off "mysterious"!

Ps. New York Times isn't a study.

Thats called a genetic fallacy.

So you are disregarding a professor emeritus of a research university?

She wrote the article.

You can find her 27 year study that she sites in the article.

Oh and also she is explaining what OTHER researchers have said.

I'm not taking the word of a hack that has the balls to write about ADD and not use the word "receptor", no. It's also totally spun. There are legitimate scruity, but the audacity of that propoganda speech is as bull#### as they come.

Doesn't mention the science: check
Compares it to drug use: check
SPECULATION: check

OK then.

You just gonon your own superior knowledge.

I will check out your paper in the next journal.

By the way you can find the studies she sites and the ones she was part of.

So a genetic falacy and an ad hominem attack against a respected research professor at a major university.

Check
And
Check.

a reply to: imjackwww.cehd.umn.edu...

a reply to: luthier

ADD issue in a nutshell:

They write scripts to people that don't have it. It's not a fantasy, it's a real thing, but the media super-fk'd it. The medication works perfect if you need it, and is bad for dopamine for everyone, however less bad if you need it, because you're not releasing extra.


Either way him calling it "mysterious" or whoever, is a JOKE.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

Bull####. So dumb they can't even describe it and just write it off "mysterious"!

Ps. New York Times isn't a study.

Thats called a genetic fallacy.

So you are disregarding a professor emeritus of a research university?

She wrote the article.

You can find her 27 year study that she sites in the article.

Oh and also she is explaining what OTHER researchers have said.

I'm not taking the word of a hack that has the balls to write about ADD and not use the word "receptor", no. It's also totally spun. There are legitimate scruity, but the audacity of that propoganda speech is as bull#### as they come.

Doesn't mention the science: check
Compares it to drug use: check
SPECULATION: check

OK then.

You just gonon your own superior knowledge.

I will check out your paper in the next journal.

By the way you can find the studies she sites and the ones she was part of.

So a genetic falacy and an ad hominem attack against a respected research professor at a major university.

Check
And
Check.

Ritalin and Adderall, a combination of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine, are stimulants.

And she can go jump off a bridge. Ritalin isn't an amphetamine. Unless I'm losing my mind to the way she describes Adderall and it's not progogadic trash.

Ok found it: it's a methylphenidate.

????? Why word it like that? She names them both, then ONLY classifies the Adderall.

Why? Because lots of people know COCAINE is an amphetamine.

Like I swear to God it almost seems intended to seem like:
Adderall: Dextroamphetamine
Ritalin: Amphetamine
to your average reader she's supposedly explaining it to, or that they're BOTH both. I misread nothing. The whole piece is to scare you. Again there ARE legitimate problems, but that's the same bull#### that started this problem: lying to the media. And the media lying to us.

"Does your 6 year-old child who eats sugar all day never shutup? It's probably ADD!"

Also what about these!?!?!:
Catapres(Sedative), Kapvay(Sedative), Nexiclon(Sedative), Strattera(CEM), Focalin(Stimulant), Intuniv(CEM), Concerta(Stimulant), Vyvanse(Stimulant)

She only has time to mention the big players are bad? And not really even accurately? Not a single Wiki just BLATANTLY leaves the part about the receptors OUT and claim it "MYSTERIOUS".


Anyway

*bubble-bubble-bubble-bubble*
*exhale Bong smoke*

It's about setting a good example for the kids.

a reply to: Iamtherealgod

"I've tried it, therefore I am the ultimate authority on everything related to how this plant works." Yeah right buddy. Personal anecdotes don't validate scientifically disproven reefer madness just because you want to hate on it.

a reply to: imjack

Couldn't hear you over the line of adderol I was snorting for my next test. My dr said it's OK. So I am a good role model.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Show me one of these studies then

Hint: it better have the word "receptor".

Sure can't find the study at the moment on my cell without the school network. But you may be able to off the OP Ed by a respected researcher.
mobile.nytimes.com...

So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

Bull####. So dumb they can't even describe it and just write it off "mysterious"!

Ps. New York Times isn't a study.

Thats called a genetic fallacy.

So you are disregarding a professor emeritus of a research university?

She wrote the article.

You can find her 27 year study that she sites in the article.

Oh and also she is explaining what OTHER researchers have said.

I'm not taking the word of a hack that has the balls to write about ADD and not use the word "receptor", no. It's also totally spun. There are legitimate scruity, but the audacity of that propoganda speech is as bull#### as they come.

Doesn't mention the science: check
Compares it to drug use: check
SPECULATION: check

OK then.

You just gonon your own superior knowledge.

I will check out your paper in the next journal.

By the way you can find the studies she sites and the ones she was part of.

So a genetic falacy and an ad hominem attack against a respected research professor at a major university.

Check
And
Check.

Ritalin and Adderall, a combination of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine, are stimulants.

And she can go jump off a bridge. Ritalin isn't an amphetamine. Unless I'm losing my mind to the way she describes Adderall and it's not progogadic trash.

Ok found it: it's a methylphenidate.

????? Why word it like that? She names them both, then ONLY classifies the Adderall.

Why? Because lots of people know COCAINE is an amphetamine.

Like I swear to God it almost seems intended to seem like:
Adderall: Dextroamphetamine
Ritalin: Amphetamine
to your average reader she's supposedly explaining it to, or that they're BOTH both. I misread nothing. The whole piece is to scare you. Again there ARE legitimate problems, but that's the same bull#### that started this problem: lying to the media. And the media lying to us.

"Does your 6 year-old child who eats sugar all day never shutup? It's probably ADD!"

Also what about these!?!?!:
Catapres(Sedative), Kapvay(Sedative), Nexiclon(Sedative), Strattera(CEM), Focalin(Stimulant), Intuniv(CEM), Concerta(Stimulant), Vyvanse(Stimulant)

She only has time to mention the big players are bad? And not really even accurately? Not a single Wiki just BLATANTLY leaves the part about the receptors OUT and claim it "MYSTERIOUS".


Anyway

*bubble-bubble-bubble-bubble*
*exhale Bong smoke*

It's about setting a good example for the kids.

So Ritalin doesn't need to be increased over the years? You know it continues to work passed 3 years? It works without therapy?

The best example for kids is don't change your lifestyle to learn how to focus. Take this pill that's a temporary solution that will destroy what's left of your dopamine production and become inneffective as you get older.

A six-year study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that, despite treatment, nine out of 10 children with moderate to severe ADHD still exhibit severe symptoms and learning impairment. 
hub.jhu.edu...

“Our findings should motivate greater attention to the possibility that longer-term stimulant use plays a role in the development of obesity in children,” said Brian S. Schwartz, MD, MS, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, Epidemiology, and Medicine at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and lead author of the study.

TextPrevious research has found substantial evidence that stimulant use to treat ADHD is associated with growth deficits, and some evidence of growth delays. 
www.jhsph.edu... adolescence.html

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

OK well at least your consistent.

You may feel more comfortable in a Muslim country.

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

They tried that once.

It was called Prohibition.

Didn't work then, won't work now.

Isn't working with Marijuana either.

FYI

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

OK well at least your consistent.

You may feel more comfortable in a Muslim country.

You know despite the fact that I don't believe in Islamic extremism most Muslim nations have a lower crime rate and lower violent crime rate than Christian nations like the United States. The intentional homocide rate in Saudia Arabia is a quarter of what the United States is. And yet the US is supposed to be the most righteous dominant Christian nation with the highest GDP in the world.

Go figure...

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

OK well at least your consistent.

You may feel more comfortable in a Muslim country.

You know despite the fact that I don't believe in Islamic extremism most Muslim nations have a lower crime rate and lower violent crime rate than Christian nations like the United States. The intentional homocide rate in Saudia Arabia is a quarter of what the United States is. And yet the US is supposed to be the most righteous dominant Christian nation with the highest GDP in the world.

Go figure...

Yeah well it helps when you don't consider much a crime. Amnesty and human rights watch would disagree.

Price you pay for being free.

Guess what else Muslim countries don't produce.....much of anything as far as inovation.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

OK well at least your consistent.

You may feel more comfortable in a Muslim country.

You know despite the fact that I don't believe in Islamic extremism most Muslim nations have a lower crime rate and lower violent crime rate than Christian nations like the United States. The intentional homocide rate in Saudia Arabia is a quarter of what the United States is. And yet the US is supposed to be the most righteous dominant Christian nation with the highest GDP in the world.

Go figure...

Yeah well it helps when you don't consider much a crime. Amnesty and human rights watch would disagree.

Price you pay for being free.

Guess what else Muslim countries don't produce.....much of anything as far as inovation.

Guess why it doesn't matter coffee is more likely to give you cancer? Because coffee isn't damaging so many cells.

Just because something is better, doesn't mean tons of damage is okay.

Maybe apply that politically.

Price you pay for being free.

Nothing is freedom if you pay for it. The implications are more ironic than that though, because the price PAID is freedom..

I know your statement is trying to defend American honor, but did you honestly read what he wrote? He didn't say we kill Muslims, he said we KILL EACH OTHER more than Muslims.

Now consider how even MORE ironic that is...your rational is the we're free because we kill each other more than Muslims blows my mind...

.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: projectvxn As it stands today, if I am a medical marijuana patient my 2nd Amendment rights get taken away.

hows that work? too many laws to keep track of it all.

In Nevada they will not allow gun ownership, CCWs or anything firearms related if you're a marijuana patient because you're using a controlled schedule 1 substance. They have to abide by federal law.

Seems like the most reasonable thing to me. If people don't have any kids to set an example for let them use marijuana all they want. But they shouldn't have access to firearms. They can have a choice. Own guns or use marijuana

But yet getting drunk or even going to bar in Arizona with a ccl is OK! Wow

Drunks shouldn't own firearms either. Alcohol should be considered a Schedule 1 drug as well.

OK well at least your consistent.

You may feel more comfortable in a Muslim country.

You know despite the fact that I don't believe in Islamic extremism most Muslim nations have a lower crime rate and lower violent crime rate than Christian nations like the United States. The intentional homocide rate in Saudia Arabia is a quarter of what the United States is. And yet the US is supposed to be the most righteous dominant Christian nation with the highest GDP in the world.

Go figure...

Yeah well it helps when you don't consider much a crime. Amnesty and human rights watch would disagree.

Price you pay for being free.

Guess what else Muslim countries don't produce.....much of anything as far as inovation.

Guess why it doesn't matter coffee is more likely to give you cancer? Because coffee isn't damaging so many cells.

Just because something is better, doesn't mean tons of damage is okay.

Maybe apply that politically.

Price you pay for being free.

Nothing is freedom if you pay for it. The implications are more ironic than that though, because the price PAID is freedom..

I know your statement is trying to defend American honor, but did you honestly read what he wrote? He didn't say we kill Muslims, he said we KILL EACH OTHER more than Muslims.

Now consider how even MORE ironic that is...your rational is the we're free because we kill each other more than Muslims blows my mind...

.

Uhhh

Maybe you need to take some more classes Jack.

Muslims kill each other constantly. Sunnis, Shia, Kurds just to name a few.
If your gay, an atheist, a woman, for apostate you name it.

They just don't consider that stuff a crime.

Next time you want to piss on America go over to Saudia Arabia. See how you like it.

America has plenty of issues. Having relative freedom and being secular has had us leading the world in innovation for over a century.

Troll much?

a reply to: luthier

Keyboard warrior response. Denial of receptor science in favor of tabloid opinion.


Who freaking CARES!? Three of those ADD medications are COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT drugs that ALSO HAPPEN to flip receptors.

If you need receptors flipped, you shouldn't just NOT be given the drugs either. I agree stimulants aren't the best choice. Ritalin is a joke compared to Adderall though and Adderall is DEFINITELY A joke compared to COCAINE.

I agree that Adderall being drug #1 is an issue because
1. Way too many people claim to have ADD to get "bad speed"
2. You don't need an amphetamine as your first freaking choice to flip receptors.
3. Lots of people don't know enough about ADD AND Adderall so they falsely assume they have it and eat dangerous drugs. OBVIOUSLY this leads to 9/10 studies...how blind is this doctor to study ADD that long and not add 2+2?


But to go to the extent to just DENY the science is just sad.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Keyboard warrior response. Denial of receptor science in favor of tabloid opinion.


Who freaking CARES!? Three of those ADD medications are COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT drugs that ALSO HAPPEN to flip receptors.

If you need receptors flipped, you shouldn't just NOT be given the drugs either.

I agree that Adderall being drug #1 is an issue because
1. Way too many people claim to have ADD to get "bad spees"
2. You don't need an amphetamine as your first freaking choice to flip receptors.

But to go to the extent to just DENY the science is just sad.

Let me guess you take add medicine?

Nice genetic fallacies.

You are trashing stanford medical, John Hopkins, and the university of Minnesota.

Looks like it's you trashing science.