I've been smokin' happy herb for 43 years.

Marijuana saved my life.

My doctor, Mr. DR. Dre suggested I smoke weed everyday.

Hello, I'm Dr. Greenthumb. I concur.

If I want to live another 43 years, I'm following your lead.

Trust a cannabis user to try and cloud the issue with facts and sources. Don't ya know the only facts that matter are that pharma would lose money…and the police state would lose funding.

Compared to that your well being, safety and freedom doesn't mean shit.

The police state would be far less frightening if harmless private habits weren't criminalised, but of course if it were legalised there'd be no drug dealers to claim the possessions of so they wouldn't be able to afford a police state.

The justice system definitely benefits from prohibition, but I'm not as quick to agree with you about the pharmaceutical mobs. If the plonkers would just allow research to be done on it then pharma could easily benefit from cannabis and its medical uses. There will always be people who want to receive the benefits of medical marijuana without having to get stoned and/or smoke something.

I'm sure there would be a great number of people who would prefer to buy their medicine at an actual pharmacy instead of a dispensary. That's where big pharma comes in, I'm sure there's still plenty of untapped potential for medical value in weed, they could sell each cannabinoid individually under a brand name unassociated with dope, then even the squares and boring people who think drugs are bad because they don't understand them can benefit from the medicinal qualities of weed without even necessarily knowing about it, like the millions of people who take codeine when they have a cold or some pain without realising its literally just a component of opium.
Pot was first made illegal due to racism, not to protect the profits of pharmaceutical corporations. Gotta use occam's razor mate. I'm not sure how heavily big pharma lobbies against pot because a quick web search pulled up nothing but heavily pot-biased information that basically says medicine is a scam and cannabis will put GSK an Pfizer out of business. But if there is heavy lobbying by pharmaceutical companies . Ps quick aside, it's only in America where it makes financial sense for medicine not to cure you, because over there you guys have to pay for your own healthcare individually rather than a socialised healthcare system like every decent country. Most of the rest of the world considers healthcare to be pretty important, and in a country with socialised healthcare the incentive is to cure people so they don't have to come back. In USA the incentive is to provide inadequate care to ensure repeat customers. Do you guys realise just because there is a socialised healthcare system in place, it doesn't mean you can't still buy private health insurance if you think it's worth it. I live in Australia and I've had plenty of hospital visits over the years, it's true sometimes you have to wait. But at the end of the wait you get treated then you go home and that's the end of it. No 6 figure hospital bills to worry about after your emergency surgery. Most medicine is affordable because it's subsidised by Medicare, and if you're a low income earner you pay even less. I still don't understand how anyone in their right mind can justify the US health system. Anyway, I digress.

I really don't see how big pharma would lose money from pot being legal. Of course it has many legitimate medicinal uses, but it's not a strong painkiller, at least not in my experience, so while it may be a better alternative to opioids for some people with certain kinds of pain, many people still need the stronger drugs to treat their pain and that fact isn't going to change just because the legal status of the drug has changed. There are people who get hooked on oxycontin or whatever then when they can't source it legally or when their tolerance becomes too high, they'll turn to the street to use heroin instead. If weed was a legitimate replacement for opioids, those inclined to buy heroin from the street to treat their pain would have just bought some pot instead since the legal repercussions are usually far less serious for possession of weed vs heroin.

If anything legalising pot should help big pharma if they have half a clue. Just from opium we've developed a shopping list of synthetic and semi-synthetic painkillers. They don't use opioids as painkillers as a secret ploy to get the nation addicted to narcotics, it's simply because for the most part opioids are the most effective. The side effects suck obviously, especially compared to cannabis but any suggestion that weed is kept illegal cos it suits big pharma seems pretty illogical to me. Plenty of illogical things are true of course, but if anything I would think once research on cannabis is legalised, just like opium we'll be able to isolate more helpful compounds like cannabidiol and I've got no doubt in my lifetime (I'm in my 20's) they'll be selling cannabidiol tablets next to the aspirin at the supermarket.

The real barrier to pot legalisation is less likely to be some evil corporate conspiracy and more likely to just be because of our grandparents fear and ignorance about the devil's lettuce. Our reluctance to change their minds doesn't help either, the legal status of dope forces people to hide in the shadows to have a toke. Unless we're willing to confront our own families about their misinformation about cannabis, we'll just have to wait patiently until more old people die and take their outdated beliefs with them.

(p.s. as a side note I have ulcerative colitis which is similar to crohns disease. before i started treatment for it I used to get really bad stomach cramps, and pot would cure that symptom literally instantly. I don't have that problem anymore now that I'm taking medication for it, but some of the drugs I have to take make me nauseous and makes it near impossible to eat because it annihilates my appetite, but yep you guessed it, bonging on cures my nausea and allows me to eat, and a full stomach keeps the nausea at bay. My life would be very uncomfortable without cannabis, but it doesn't directly treat anything to do with my condition, it just treats cramps and gives me the munchies which masks the negative side effects of the other medication. I think overselling the benefits of pot is gonna backfire once people do become educated about cannabis and understand that it doesn't cure cancer whatsoever. It might improve their quality of life by counteracting the negative side effects of other drugs, and with proper research cannabis might even be able to provide clues for cancer treatments because there is definitely at least some indication that cannabis oil can be effective to at least some tumours. We just all need to stop trying to sell it as a magical potion that unlocks your consciousness and makes you immortal and focus instead on the hard facts that it doesn't harm you in any major way, it's healthy apart from the whole smoke in your lungs thing which can be easily avoided with edibles or a vaporizer, it does have some useful and realistic medical applications, and most importantly it would

"it doesn't cure cancer whatsoever".. then.. "indication that cannabis oil can be effective to at least some tumors." Contradicted yourself there..

We all know by now that the reason that it's illegal is because they don't want everyone to have access to it and they want to have people put in jail for it. It's a win win for them because people stay unhappy and unfulfilled which makes it easier for them to sell their bullshit and at the same time they make prison money. It's not hard to understand, you don't need 1000 words to make sense of it. They know there's money to be made from it, which is probably why they're letting some states have it, but ultimately they don't want people to be able to open their minds and see things for what they are; a horribly corrupt world where government does nothing to help and does everything in their power to exploit.

yeah true, i should have removed the first statement or just made it less absolute, but i didn't want to deny that there might be a real link between cannabis and its ability to possibly treat some tumours, all I meant to say was that certain people are calling a spade a state of the art all-purpose gardening tool.

I don't disagree with you but I don't think smoking cannabis is necessary to become aware of the police state and government corruption so I doubt that's the reason for its suppression, plus if smoking dope caused anyone to do anything about these realisations then the government would already be in all sorts of trouble because we're not exactly a minority. And I also don't think prohibition is an evil mastermind plot to create a war against consciousness to keep us conditioned and unhappy, I don't think I can give them that much credit. Everything seems planned and orchestrated with 20/20 hindsight. The only way to claim prohibition is like some bitchy ex girlfriend hell bent on emotionally destroying you is to back it up with evidence. I'd believe it's possible but you made some pretty wild claims without anything to back it up. So I kinda do need the 1000 word version or at least a list of references, otherwise you're just making stuff up and stating it as fact. (edit: not really. I bored even myself with this post so I'm not literally demanding your source. if you do search and can't find any evidence, maybe reconsider why you believed it in the first place. just because something seems true doesn't make it so. if you're unhappy and unfulfilled weed isn't going to magically cure that, and the government didn't impose those emotions on you with their laws from 80 years ago. I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, I was the cunt preaching to people about the illuminati and the reptilians this time 5 years ago, but once you start believing outlandish unsupported drivel (with a few real conspiracies tossed in for good measure and to give the illusion of accuracy) so now I just stick to conspiracies which can't be refuted instead of the ones posted on some blogspot lookin page where the source is one bloke who claims he used to work for the UFO department in the pentagon because I'm sure it's not good for your mental health to sacrifice your critical thinking. I swear I was halfway on my way to schizophrenia or something because I was so convinced by the David Icke nonsense and I'd accept all information from any source as gospel as long as it supported my point of view, which I perceived as open mindedness but really I was just blindly following either a clever manipulator or more likely a genuine wackjob. I like to think I'm more skeptical and scrutinising which is a hard to do while keeping your mind open, the two states are basically complimentary to each other because if you're too skeptical you won't believe anything and if you're too open minded that quickly becomes gullibility.)

In reality the worst damage was probably caused by well-intentioned morons at best or greedy investors or a ambitious bureaucrats at worst. One evil soulless ambitious bureaucrat to be precise, the worst man in the world Harry Anslinger. But I don't think there was really any defined plan to use prohibition as mind control, it was basically just Anslinger creating a campaign against dope because he had nothing to do after they repealed (alcohol) prohibition. Rather than a far reaching interdimensional conspiracy against our personal thoughts and emotions, this excerpt from wikipedia makes more sense to me:

"Prior to the end of alcohol prohibition, Anslinger had claimed that cannabis was not a problem, did not harm people, and “there is no more absurd fallacy” than the idea it makes people violent. His critics argue he shifted not due to objective evidence but due to the obsolescence of the Department of Prohibition he headed when alcohol prohibition ceased - seeking a new Prohibition. Of 30 leading scientists whose views he sought, 29 said cannabis did no harm. However, Anslinger chose to pursue only the views of the one who did."

It was literally all just because of that one dude who must've needed success in his career to fill the hole inside from where his mother never loved him, or maybe it's a simple case of micropenis. They're not even organised enough to be consistent in their reasoning for keeping it illegal as the years go by and more and more evidence starts piling up to prove that it's not only fine but has medicinal uses, which they obviously already knew at the time because it was still being sold in chemists at that stage. They changed their excuse for keeping it illegal every time their previous claims got debunked or outdated. Every stoner should obviously already know this from the training video you get at the stoner induction course, which everyone knows is "Grass" with Woody Harrelson. It was criminalised indirectly by requiring a licence to grow it but they wouldn't give anyone a licence, that was a thinly veiled racist response to xenophobia against the Mexicans who were using it, then it became worse than heroin and turned you into a murderer in the 1930's when that propaganda movie came out, then it was the gateway drug blah blah blah.

The problem now is we've gone almost too far in the wrong direction. Not so many people believe that it's poison now but too many people think it literally cures cancer like magic or something, and it's like they don't realise cancer is an umbrella term for a huge number or different types of cancers which can be vastly different and someone suggesting that cannabis cures cancer should be expected to know which specific cancer there is clinical evidence for efficacy and the roa of the person who had success with it, otherwise they're dribbling shit, potentially harmful if you tell someone with esophageal cancer or one of the ones with a high mortality rate that weed will cure it and they're also as gullible as you are.

ps yeah you're right that blind freddy can see it's become just a racket for the police (and the investors in private prisons who get to profit from human suffering, we shouldn't let them off the hook) but apparently that's just a happy coincidence according to this paragraph I read moments ago. from wiki:

"Federal and state governments have a long history of contracting out specific services to private firms, including medical services, food preparation, vocational training, and inmate transportation. The 1980s, though, ushered in a new era of prison privatization. With a burgeoning prison population resulting from the War on Drugs and increased use of incarceration, prison overcrowding and rising costs became increasingly problematic for local, state, and federal governments. In response to this expanding criminal justice system, private business interests saw an opportunity for expansion, and consequently, private-sector involvement in prisons moved from the simple contracting of services to contracting for the complete management and operation of entire prisons."

Who better to run a deregulated prison system than opportunistic greedy businessmen!

I agree with you for the most part and you're definitely more outspoken than I am haha. I usually just lump things into a big picture without evidence because I figure everyone (at least on here) can see it already. I do, however, think there is an effort to shut down basic human consciousness and the main evidence of that being the fluoridation of most of the world's water supply. The fluoride they put in the water turns the pineal gland in our brain into a worthless rock essentially (you probably already know this). It also does nothing good for our teeth like they claim; it even leads to dental and skeletal fluorosis.. Very bad for our bodies and minds, yet it's done in most first world countries.

Well now how sure are you of these things? You seem to be sure, by your usage of the phrase "I'm sure" so often. Are you sure? Do you promise you're sure? I'm not sure you're sure, is all.

haha good point, i should have said "I believe" or "i hear" or "some people are saying..." then i could make invalidated claims like the news.

but despite my limits of articulation, there's no such thing as an objective reality in the first place. that's why war still exists. if anyone was sure about anything we'd all be living in harmony. the problem is if you start doubting the "mainstream media" you can forget that opportunistic fear mongering for personal gain isn't relegated only to the mainstream. Alex Jones will say how much he hates commercialism then tell you to spend a fortune on a bunker or something from his sponsor.

It could be argued he's simply that stupid and believes doomsday preparation is the most useful thing to advertise since he has no choice if he wants to profit. Same way naturalnews will have ads for placebo vitamin supplements and shit while at the same time telling you vaccines are poison. i honestly hope and do believe that these people really are just stupid enough to believe their own horseshit, but the cynical side of me can imagine how easy it would be to exploit people by convincing them the world is hostile and dangerous and under absolute control by the reptilians or the rothschilds or rockefellers or jay-z or whoever the latest youtube clip claims is the leader of the illuminati.

Even Donald Trump uses that fear mongering about the evil of society even though he's basically the epitome of the evil he's talking about.

the rothschild/rockefeller dynasties probably piss themselves lauhging at the stupid shit people believe about them, and why would you refute it if you were them? what's wrong with being considered one of the families that controls the world? plus perception is reality anyway when it comes to PR so I'm sure I reckon half the conspiracy theories about the Rockefellers and Rothschilds is spread by their own minions to make people continue to believe they control the world. influence is different from control, but you can influence almost to the point of control if you're believed to be in control by the people you're trying to influence. they're stupid enough to be religious so there's every possibility they're stupid enough to add masonic and demonic symbolism to the design of the Israeli supreme court because they believe it makes a difference, but i hope anyone who can think critically enough to delve into conspiracies with a healthy mixture of skepticism and open-mindedness understands that just because they believe it doesn't make it so. as Alan Watts said, "don't be so open minded that your brain falls out".

even science is only a method of making sense of our world but it's limited by our perceptions and by the instruments used. that's how light can be a wave or a particle. light is still light no matter how we define it, whether it's a wave or a particle is determined by human perception and human instruments. humans have a strong instinct to make sense of the world which is obviously not a bad thing, but because there are so many unknowns, thats when people fill the void with religion or conspiracies. I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised if belief in unverified conspiracies activates the same part of the brain as religion.

I'm not comparing healthy skepticism and knowledge of real conspiracies to the blind following in religion, but for example anyone who believes in the faked moon landing conspiracy by watching one documentary that makes sense to their very limited knowledge of physics and holds onto that belief after being confronted by the immense evidence to the contrary because it can just be dismissed as propaganda because it doesn't match their beliefs is just a gullible moron. those are usually the people on Facebook telling everyone to "wake up".

p.s to answer your question, i'm sure there's no such thing as being sure. I can't be sure about the moon landing because I can only trust what I'm told by reliable sources when it's about something that can only be verified by an astrophysicist, and I can't be sure jet fuel can melt steel beams either because I'm not an engineer. The only thing you can be sure of is that you can't be sure of anything. If you were an engineer or astrophysicist you'd probably know that you can only ever know for a fact either way is if you were Neil Armstrong, or Osama Bin Laden.

But I think at the very least it's much better for your mental health to only accept the conspiracies which are confirmed by more than one reliable publication. Obviously it's possible that all conspiracies are true, in the same way it's possible the flying spaghetti monster is real. But that's why I don't reckon it's a conspiracy against consciousness that belief in conspiracy theories can be considered a warning sign or symptom of schizophrenia, because believing something as fact without proof is the definition of a delusion.

If you read David Icke's books with the knowledge that his parents ignored childhood diagnosis of schizophrenia they read more like a journal of a clever man with extremely distorted ideas about some things while being spot on about others. He sprinkles in the real conspiracies, then adds to them by saying reptilians control the universe because a voice told him in a book store. Not all schizophrenics hear voices though it is a symptom, but lots of people fail to understand that the "positive" version of schizophrenia presents as delusions of grandeur, false beliefs etc. All of David Ickes followers are encouraging his delusions if he really is schizophrenic. I don't wanna sound like one of those retards who mock him without even giving him a chance because I've read some of his books and watched one of his 12hr seminars because to my teenage self his ideas made a lot of sense, until I started following his suggestion of researching it myself and a lot of his baloney falls apart unless you rely on the fact that absolutely every media source is under total control by reptilians. But if you trust the voice in one mans head more than the admittedly biased news, now you've got your own delusions.

http://www.planetxtube.com/category-table/243-david-ickes-mental-health-questioned-by-his-own-doctor

(yes I know this source is defending him and it's as unreliable as most conspiracy sites, but it shows how many leaps of faith need to be made by the author to dismiss the possibility of mental illness...the most telling quote is - "If David Icke is crazy it would be because he, and his first wife, are speaking to what he calls "entities" (which are Demons) and this leads to Demon posession (which is what insanity is caused by).")

David Icke would be harmless if no one bought his books. But not only does the public reinforce his delusions, he passes off bullshit as facts, tells you to ignore all other media sources, then says "do your own research" because he knows for most people, that statement alone is enough to confirm to them that no research is required, otherwise why would he suggest it? Reverse psychology.

For the sake of fairness and a possibly less cynical answer, I'll also add this quote of support from his otherwise derisive Wikipedia article:
"Richard Kahn and Tyson Lewis argue that Icke's reptilian hypothesis may be Swiftian satire, offering a narrative with which ordinary people can question what they see around them"

That could explain why alex jones dismissed the theory for a while in the early days until David probably had a chat with him to explain his logic. He's very articulate and clever about things he hasn't simply made up so I don't know how simple that would be for untreated schizophrenics, so if the claim about reptilians isn't a real conviction held by Icke but rather just a literary device, that makes him Robert Anton Wilson level genius. The most harm then comes from the people who don't think critically about what he writes, it's ignored by most people as soon as they hear about reptilians, so I can't tell if that means it's brilliant satire or worthless satire because they only people reading it are the ones who literally believe in reptilians, and that vaccines are poison. If it was just satire I hope those claims came from stupidity rather than an attempt at satire because it has so much potential harm if it's taken as fact by the reader.

I hate when they introduce his views as antisemitic because the belief that his view about Israel being a Rothschild playground, which it pretty much literally is, he makes clear is an anti-Zionism position and that being anti-Israel isn't automatically being antisemitic because his claim is that Jewish people are targeted by the conspiracy. That's Orwellian level shit, he never says anything disparaging about Jewish people, only the dynastic families he believes are running the world.

So just from a basic search I could conclude that David Icke is a misunderstood but gifted genius, or a schizophrenic wackjob that only other wackjobs could possibly agree with. Having a source for your claims is necessary for no reason other than to confirm whether your source is reliable or not. Most people will search for things that they already believe (I'm guilty of this too) to use as a source rather than reading the opposite opinion first to see if your opinion changes. But really that's pretty much a waste of time since there are supporters on both sides of every issue and usually at least some good points on both sides.

To wit, pedophiles are considered the most reviled people in society, but if you google "virtuous pedophiles" and put aside your disgust for a moment you realise how vastly different it is to be a pedophile than how it's reported to us. It's a sexual persuasion like being gay (sorry gay people, obviously 2 consenting adults is totally not the same, I just mean that it's an orientation like gay or straight, not that there is any link between being gay and being a pedophile), it's just inherently evil to act on your sexual urges so I'd much rather be gay than to be a pedophile.

That's why I don't understand the opposition to child sex dolls. A person whose sexual orientation is pedophilia with any level of morality would go to any lengths to avoid acting on their desires (see pedophile suicide rate - http://www.vice.com/read/realizing-youre-a-pedophile-can-make-you-want-to-kill-yourself). Why don't people want pedophiles getting off with an inanimate object instead of a real kid? It would be very hard or impossible to know whether it encourages or discourages abuse because of the taboo around discussing it or even admitting non-anonymously to being a non-active pedo. I suppose if sales of child sex dolls rose at the same level as child abuse then there's at least a correlation and then the outrage could start, but I think the worst thing that could happen is that a potential future child rapist doesn't act on it because their lifelike yet inanimate doll is satisfaction enough for them.

I think Louis CK must understand this issue pretty well cos this is probably what he was getting at when he said "if we hated pedophiles just a little less, you'd probably get your kid back rather than murdered.". Obviously just a joke and not useful or helpful which he admits, but the taboo restricts non-active pedos from seeking help, and it would also reinforce in their minds that they must be evil or something if they were born with an attraction to kids because it's never mentioned or even suggested that pedophilia is a sexual persuasion, i'm reluctant to compare it to homosexuality again, it's more comparable to someone who is only attracted to animals. because it's obviously extremely different with 2 consenting adults, but gays trapped in their religious paradigm must be able to at least empathise with pedophiles if they know what it's like to have to hide part of yourself because of the cultural rules of society, or to be attacked for your sexual persuasion. I don't intend any of this to be offensive so the problem is with your self esteem if you think I'm connecting these issues in any way other than to make people understand it's pedophilia is a sexual orientation and something you choose, the only difference is that gay people can satisfy their sexual desires as long as they don't live somewhere oppressive like the middle east or the southern US.
a Also, if it wasn't considered taboo to admit that you're a non-active pedophile, they could voluntarily supply their DNA or something to be able to be ruled out of any child molestation that does occur. Religous people can be abstinent if they choose to be, at least until they get married, so why do we assume people who are just attracted to kids but would never act on it couldn't be abstinent with good therapy and a normal sense of morality (maybe not since those Christian gay camps are obviously bullshit, but that's because they're trying to fundamentally change you rather than support you not to act on something that actually is harmful.) Plus, please forgive another gay reference but it's pertinent, it is possible to be bisexual. You could be a pedophile that is also attracted to older women, and even if not there's no crime against consensual sex with someone over the age of consent who just happens to look very young. By forming a lynch mob against anyone who even seeks treatment for being a pedophile only pushes them further from regular society and more likely to act on their urges. I read about a country in Europe that offers anonymous support sessions for pedophiles to discuss with each other how to avoid acting on their fantasies, and it would also make it easier to determine who might be most likely to act on their urges. It's obviously controversial but it's been successful, I think the link is on that Virtuous Pedos site but i cbf finding it.

In conclusion, any belief can be challenged if you have a lifetime to discuss the topic. You were right to challenge me saying that "I'm sure" because I definitely am not. That's why I feel like I can't even try to sift through all the theories to find what's true or not because likely most of them are bullshit except the ones that people are already aware of, but you'd find convincing results for both sides of the argument so basically I'm agnostic about reality because if I wasn't I'd probably lose my mind going round in circles.

You typed all that and I'm nearly certain you said absolutely nothing...

the people want weed but the governments wont let us have it, just more proof that the governments do not work for the people

Amen

[deleted]

It's called sarcasm you braindead asshat

They really need an audio option for sarcastic comments…lol

Do asshats come in Candy Kush?

Bubblegum shatter

Translation "We're the DEA and we like having jobs and power and stuff."

This is obviously it. There's no way the DEA wants to give up that kind of hustle. Plus, the prison industrial complex would have a lot fewer inmates and that's no good for them either.

The prison system has actually donated money to the anti-cannabis movement because they state that "a reduction in convictions would reduce their potential clientele" or words to that effect.

Really?

Because money talks and the DEA needs the funding from the government cause not everything is free.

Alternate translation.

"Guess who gets that youth vote riled up just in time."

Exactly my thought as well. And Google gets it out to the young vote.

There ya go, just pointing all these known benefits out just so you can go toke your devil's lettuce. Damn dirty hippies.

[deleted]

Cool bro. My wife suffers cluster migraines, and had a mild but still present seizure disorder. When I used to grow the fungii and we took journeys she didn't have the headaches, and the fine top shelf ganj helps keep the seizures and headaches at bay. My comment was in jest, poking fun at those who carry the "you just say that because you want to smoke" attitude that is totally ignorant.

yea I forgot to push the sarcastic button =).

Ewwww I wish someday I could stir up emotions enough to get death threats just from posting a line of bs. People usually just blow me off abd move on to the next...

Incredible

It's refreshing and welcomed here

It is truly a shame the DEA couldn't be bothered to do your kinda research. Maybe forward this?

I truly do love you. And can't wait until your "no responsive documents could be found" reply arrives. We both know how this works. I will be watching.

Excellent. Always quality thank you. 👌🏼

I do not understand why the DEA is so resistant to cannabis. If they let go of the cannabis problem, then they can more effort in chasing down to heroin and opoid traffickers. I think the problem it is bunch of career bureaucrats from the late 1980s to early 1990s that started their career with the agency and now have top positions. They are very firm in their ways and indoctrinated by the drug policies of that time which were anti-weed. Until a new generation leadership comes into agency and replaces the career bureaucrats, the DEA is going to remain anti-marijuana unless forced to by a President who firmly pushes back on the DEA career bureaucracy.

Just the amount of money the Govs of the world would make off the tax would be insane. If they extended it to all drugs it would be able to fund all kinds of services to help people with addiction problems that cause the behaviours that land users in jail...

It's probably more profitable to keep a large prison population of forced labor.

Weed seems to have the ability to break the mind control programming we are all subjected to, and makes you think and question your reality. You can find lots of info about this online. I believe that's the main reason they are so resistant.

[deleted]

they allow contact with the divine

Fully agree. Interesting to note, you said it's out of character to say those things, but it seems you are well practiced.

I'll add that those truly in control, not talking heads/politicians, want all of us to idiotically walk around staring at our phones, play a hypnotic augmented reality game, gathering intelligence for their local control /international war making and profit machine, then buy more stuff, go to work, and live like a drone. Dumb-drone behaviour keeps them in power. The last thing they want is a trend that sees more and more people meditating, experimenting with psychedelics and reaching out to spirits.

👌🏼

If only someone could tell the DEA about the US Patent on the use of Cannabinoids. You'd think a reporter could do some research on the matter.

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Assignee:The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

[deleted]

cannabis usage can help disrupt some forms of psychological warfare being perpetrated on the public at large

Quality sarcastic thread title,well done.

[deleted]

They need sick people unfortunately. They need unhappy people. They want us to think we need them to lead us. They are losing their grip, and I hope we see more stories like yours, having stopped drinking three years ago myself. Sugar is my sin and is killing me slowly, so I need to figure that out

[deleted]

Living conditions don't allow me to smoke, so I need to get sugar out of my edibles. I moved to vegetable glycerine tincture and concentrates / dabbing (smell isn't noticeable as flower). I need to stop drinking soda and eating candy. My body misses the sugar from alcohol, so I need to train my mind, control my gut flora... Need to look into meditation and mushrooms

My father was a type 2 diabetic. After he was run over recently, he was put on a low-carb diet to transition to a ketogenic diet. He's cured now, so I'd advise you to look it up

The worst thing to happen to the USA are these degenerate pieces of shits that gravitate to law enforcement.

I quit smoking almost a year ago but it opened my eyes to the world and how vapid mainstream television is

it is a kinda awesome pain killer for "aches and pains" type pain, i can't speak for more serious pain

What's the medical value of cigarettes?

Tell that to my menstrual cramps!

Oh wait. You can't, because after a few puffs they're gone!

In contrast, alcohol is implicated in 80% of accidents leading to ER visits and 80% of arrests for violent behavior. Every day people die from alcohol overdose. No one has ever died from cannabis overdose.

Phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer - US Patent 20130059018 A1

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants - US Patent 6630507 B1

Over 100 Scientific Studies Agree: Cannabis Annihilates Cancer

What if Cannabis Oil Cured Cancer?

123 Studies Show Cannabis Prohibition Is Killing Cancer Patients

Watch What Happens When Cannabis is Injected Into Cancer Cells

Can someone compile a list academic journals pertaining to the benefits of cannabis oil for OP loll fight fire with fire

I would caution people against judging all "pot" equally. The modern hydroponically grown strains are not the same as older naturally grown pot imo. I've seen two close friends descend into mental health issues due to smoking modern hydro, and I regard it almost as bad as that fucking ice bullshit.

Yeah, DV away, but I hung around stoners my whole life, and the older ones that have been smoking hydro for more than 10 years are all a bit strange now. Two at least I would consider clinical. One is a fucking paranoid shut in that never leaves his house, and the other is fucking psychotic. Hyper fuckin in your face like he's on crack or some shit, before his massive depressed crashes. Both smoke hydro as soon as they wake up and are on it ALL day. And people want to tell me it ain't addictive lol. Like fuck it ain't.

It has medical value, but it can also fuck people's lives up bad.

It has an effect on your brain, it seems.

Most people just use it to get high.

LEGALIZE IT BECAUSE MY NECK HURTS AND NO DRUG HELPS!

You know there are real people out there with real problems that use marijuana to cure their aliments, I don't think sarcasm is needed.

Thanks for reminding me to click on user names to see what type of posts they comment on and their history of such!

I am not antagonistic if you are referring to me. I type all Caps sometimes to actually show yelling. I was hurting a few days ago and this post related to me. Did you check my post history? I'm not faux anything, and I'm strongly constitutional.

Yup, just the folks using it for their seizures is evidence enough for me. Big pharma can suck it.

Dude I'm fricken serious. I'm a disabled army veteran that went through every injection medicine had to offer. I slept on it wrong and it's been days of agony. Bulged discs in my entire (C1-C7) neck, nerve hubs spasming in my lower back, whole body spasms and nerve pain. Alcohol and painkillers are only temporary and tolerance makes it worse. I can only take NSAIDS and I might as well bandaid an amputated limb.

Wow man I'm sorry to hear that. I guess everyone thought you were being sarcastic.

Yeah sarcasm and seriousness are presented by inflection and body language for me, I see how it looks. No apologies, I am desperate for a treatment and IVE NEVER TRIED BUT I hear GREAT things about its pain relief, euphoria, and anxiety relief. I used to drink a lot but that makes the literal pain worse so that is not worth it. Opiates were the same (but I do crave them on bad days)

Well I must say it affects different people in different ways. Get to a legal state and try it out medically if you can. Hopefully this damn country will legalize it so we can get rid of the need of opiates altogether... It'll probably never happen though. It's not in the interest of pharm companies. Makes me sick to my stomach.

Yup, just the folks using it for their seizures is evidence enough for me. Big pharma can suck it.

Hello, I'm Dr. Greenthumb. I concur.

Dude I'm fricken serious. I'm a disabled army veteran that went through every injection medicine had to offer. I slept on it wrong and it's been days of agony. Bulged discs in my entire (C1-C7) neck, nerve hubs spasming in my lower back, whole body spasms and nerve pain. Alcohol and painkillers are only temporary and tolerance makes it worse. I can only take NSAIDS and I might as well bandaid an amputated limb.

To wit, pedophiles are considered the most reviled people in society, but if you google "virtuous pedophiles" and put aside your disgust for a moment you realise how vastly different it is to be a pedophile than how it's reported to us. It's a sexual persuasion like being gay (sorry gay people, obviously 2 consenting adults is totally not the same, I just mean that it's an orientation like gay or straight, not that there is any link between being gay and being a pedophile), it's just inherently evil to act on your sexual urges so I'd much rather be gay than to be a pedophile.

That's why I don't understand the opposition to child sex dolls. A person whose sexual orientation is pedophilia with any level of morality would go to any lengths to avoid acting on their desires (see pedophile suicide rate - http://www.vice.com/read/realizing-youre-a-pedophile-can-make-you-want-to-kill-yourself). Why don't people want pedophiles getting off with an inanimate object instead of a real kid? It would be very hard or impossible to know whether it encourages or discourages abuse because of the taboo around discussing it or even admitting non-anonymously to being a non-active pedo. I suppose if sales of child sex dolls rose at the same level as child abuse then there's at least a correlation and then the outrage could start, but I think the worst thing that could happen is that a potential future child rapist doesn't act on it because their lifelike yet inanimate doll is satisfaction enough for them.

I think Louis CK must understand this issue pretty well cos this is probably what he was getting at when he said "if we hated pedophiles just a little less, you'd probably get your kid back rather than murdered.". Obviously just a joke and not useful or helpful which he admits, but the taboo restricts non-active pedos from seeking help, and it would also reinforce in their minds that they must be evil or something if they were born with an attraction to kids because it's never mentioned or even suggested that pedophilia is a sexual persuasion, i'm reluctant to compare it to homosexuality again, it's more comparable to someone who is only attracted to animals. because it's obviously extremely different with 2 consenting adults, but gays trapped in their religious paradigm must be able to at least empathise with pedophiles if they know what it's like to have to hide part of yourself because of the cultural rules of society, or to be attacked for your sexual persuasion. I don't intend any of this to be offensive so the problem is with your self esteem if you think I'm connecting these issues in any way other than to make people understand it's pedophilia is a sexual orientation and something you choose, the only difference is that gay people can satisfy their sexual desires as long as they don't live somewhere oppressive like the middle east or the southern US.
a Also, if it wasn't considered taboo to admit that you're a non-active pedophile, they could voluntarily supply their DNA or something to be able to be ruled out of any child molestation that does occur. Religous people can be abstinent if they choose to be, at least until they get married, so why do we assume people who are just attracted to kids but would never act on it couldn't be abstinent with good therapy and a normal sense of morality (maybe not since those Christian gay camps are obviously bullshit, but that's because they're trying to fundamentally change you rather than support you not to act on something that actually is harmful.) Plus, please forgive another gay reference but it's pertinent, it is possible to be bisexual. You could be a pedophile that is also attracted to older women, and even if not there's no crime against consensual sex with someone over the age of consent who just happens to look very young. By forming a lynch mob against anyone who even seeks treatment for being a pedophile only pushes them further from regular society and more likely to act on their urges. I read about a country in Europe that offers anonymous support sessions for pedophiles to discuss with each other how to avoid acting on their fantasies, and it would also make it easier to determine who might be most likely to act on their urges. It's obviously controversial but it's been successful, I think the link is on that Virtuous Pedos site but i cbf finding it.

In conclusion, any belief can be challenged if you have a lifetime to discuss the topic. You were right to challenge me saying that "I'm sure" because I definitely am not. That's why I feel like I can't even try to sift through all the theories to find what's true or not because likely most of them are bullshit except the ones that people are already aware of, but you'd find convincing results for both sides of the argument so basically I'm agnostic about reality because if I wasn't I'd probably lose my mind going round in circles.