Originally Posted by cosmos
"National Institude on Drug Abuse is hardly a unbiased source, it's government run. "
1. Prove me the government is biased, and prove to me that billions of dollars have gone down the drain for the sole purpose of making drug takers unhappy.
"You get hte impression Science is saying cannabis is evil and dangerous, from a few government funded tests."
2. A few? how about 85% of all the worlds research regarding the topic.
"addiction is NOT a huge issue with cannabis as it is not physically addictive, it is psychologically addictive. "
3. so basically your admitting that its addictive.
"The same word applys to cannabis. It has no permanent side effect,"
4. prove it. word of mouth doesnt prove anything
"Also in the future, i ask that you do not make false accusations against me, or conspire against me."
5. stop making false accusations rightnow, and maybe i will stop too
1. The government doesn't want to make just drug users unhappy, they want to make anyone who has any fun unhappy! They are obviously not doing this just to make people unhappy, or to deprive people of something they are entitled to. However the government is biased because they have a stance on an issue, and if they go back on a stance, it shows weakness. How would it look if George Bush legalised all drugs, after YEARS of anti-drugs campaigning and "Just say No!" schemes!
The government is biased, and NIDA is too. For they are an instiute that is against drug use, and against poeple having rights to do what they want with themselves. Where do you get your information from? Anti-drugs sources. Where do i get my facts from? Non government, scientific research, or the PRESS, which is supposed to be as unbiased as possible.
How about you use CNN, seeing as it seems too hard for your mind to comprehend there is actually a huge opposition to marijuana criminilsation in the medical and scientific community. Why should i have to prove all of this to you, im the one proving my argument, and disproving your argument at hte same time. All you are doing is going around in circles with your NIDA crap.
2. 85%? Where did you get this figure? Of the worlds research? I find that hard to believe, either you made it up or NIDA made it up. Prove it (something you keep saying)
3. Basically i am admitting that it can be addictive in people with addictive personalities. Someone can get psychologically addicted to anyhting wether its sweets or normal drugs, read my sources in the post above. Any drug can produce a craving effect, psychologically.
However the difference is, cannabis does not produce physical withdrawl effects like those seen in heroin users, who can die. It does activate the GAS system, if they are a heavy user, but this triggered psychologically, and can occur with anything from sweets to paracetemol. Basically anything that has a chemical reaction in your body and effects the brain chemical dopamine (ie chocolate). I was never holding anything back, and i never said it wasn't addictive in anyway.
4. Word of mouth? Im using a word, as a definition from the dictionary.
If by word of mouth, you mean that that it is not fatal. Then you are absolutly wrong. Cannabis has had NO fatalities recorded in medical literature? Don't believe me, prove im wrong. SHow me where it says "Cannabis overdose can cause death, or brain damage in high doses" on the NIDA webpage....I wonder why it doesn't say anything about cannabis overdose on there.....because there's no such thing!
Scientific evidence says others. Yes there is a toxic limit anyone can take for any drug, but for cannabis, you have to consume a third of your bodyweight....all at once! That was no fabricated bullshit, like your work. Look it up if you don't believe me, Prove cannabis is fatal.
Where does it say cannabis has permanent side effects on the NIDA webpage? It doesn't, and that's your beloved anti-drugs website. I've sent you many MANY sources from different locations, citing it has no permanent effects.
Yes it has LONG TERM effects in heavy users, such as problems with short term memory. But these subside after a few weeks to a month, don't believe me it even says so on NIDA. Something along hte lines of "cannabis use has been shown to cause anxiety effects and thinking etc blah blah in users for days or even upto months in some users!"
And thats the most biased they can put it, because if they wrote.
Cannabis use is lethal in high doses, it has permanent side effects and makes you brain damaged for the rest of your life. It is physically addictive, and users commonly die of withdrawl. - Saying a statement like that wouldn't be fact, that would be an outright lie.
5. So your admitting you were trying to conspire against me earlier?