|
|
Post by steev on Jun 1, 2015 19:16:01 GMT -5
There has been ample evidence of the appetite-stimulating/nausea-suppressing effects of Cannabis for those unfortunates who must undergo chemotherapy. The technology for separating the various compounds produced by the Cannabis plant(s) is well-established, and there has been study of their various uses/effects. Still, there is a great wall of "not enough evidence" (sounds like climate-change deniers) and "what about the children?!" standing in the way of actual research, not to mention common-sense, personal experience, and individual liberty/responsibility. That's the preamble, the fore-play; you've been kissed, so on to the fuck-job.
One of my grand-nieces developed a brain tumor; it was "successfully" excised; she is sentenced to a 52-week regime of chemo; her parents got her a medical-marijuana card; none of her doctors can/will advise on or facilitate her getting those Cannabis compounds which could help her eat, but not get her stoned; so much for "what about the children?". Perhaps some of those opposed to Cannabis research/de-criminalization can explain why she has to go through this without obviously beneficial substances (without falling back on their personal superstitions), but they should keep it simple: she's eight.
|
|
|
|
Post by flowerweaver on Jun 1, 2015 21:22:50 GMT -5
Sorry to hear about your grand-niece, and the lack of help from her doctors in getting help. I hope she will regain her health and come through this tough time. I wonder if the doctors are just personally opposed, or not wanting to have the perceived stigma of providing that kind of help?
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jun 1, 2015 21:30:55 GMT -5
My guess is that they're concerned about Federal regulations/insurance conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Jun 1, 2015 22:57:42 GMT -5
Most doctors know nothing about cannabis, or nutrition, or high dose vitamin C therapy, or selenium for treating cancer, or indeed anything that is even slightly out of the medical mainstream.
Good luck to the little girl. I hope she finds a decent doctor.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 2, 2015 3:51:57 GMT -5
I'm really sorry about your grand-niece Steev, and the trouble finding suitable doctor. I hope you figure something out. I heard there was a group of people in a similar situation in Colorado, perhaps there's some useful information to be found there, maybe over the Internet?
To answer your questions why, historically, it's the tobacco companies who are behind this sort of thing. They are the ones who want to make sure their products are the only ones socially acceptable and safe. They were the driving force behind prohibition. They still are the ones supporting drug laws and unreasonable drinking ages, with the smoking age always a little lower and less stringently enforced, so their products seem safer and are more available to young people.
The opium laws that the US forced on the world, that led to the modern drug wars, explicitly legalized tobacco.
When the international treaty allowing public smoking bans went into effect a couple of years ago, together with the public smoking ban here in The Netherlands was a call to raise the drinking age. Previously it was 16, and enforcement was completely at the discretion of the person selling it. In particular, it was legal for an adult to give alcohol to anyone of any age, as long as it wasn't sold. Even though 7 out of 8 parents of under age young people wanted their children to continue to be able to drink, they raised the age to 18 and started enforcing it. The new law also covered giving for free, and minors in posession of alcohol were now subject to a fine. The justification was a study that showed drinking alcohol damaged the brains of young people.
After the increase in age, another group of researchers in the country repeated the study with one important difference. The original study focused on young people who had issues that caused them to drink more; depression, family troubles, developmental issues and so on. When they repeated the study, they looked at a cross section of society, which was mostly young people that drank socially and in a normal way. This second study found no evidence of increased brain damage in young people who drank, although they admitted their test group was probably too small to give a really conclusive result.
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Jun 2, 2015 8:52:48 GMT -5
They have been doing similar kinds of dishonest studies with cannabis and vitamins for years. They study people who grew up with family issues, dropped out of school by 12, had multiple arrest records and also smoked cannabis and concluded that cannabis caused all their problems. With vitamins they intentionaly use poorly designed studies with multiple flaws including using low doses of vitamins or minerals that are known to be ineffective at low doses, and then concluded that vitamins are worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jun 2, 2015 10:25:20 GMT -5
Really, if your study doesn't prove what you want it to, what's the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Jun 2, 2015 18:29:53 GMT -5
Really, if your study doesn't prove what you want it to, what's the point? Unfortunately, that does seem to be the viewpoint of all corporations and most scientists these days. |
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jun 2, 2015 20:38:44 GMT -5
It does appear that we're more interested in "validation" than truth; the growing clout of industry and special interests in both our political and research concerns seems a less than optimal development, if we want to deal with the fact-based world. Personally, I would dispute the notion that most (perhaps any) scientists are coming from the desire-based world; now, "experts" are another matter, readily available on the open market.
PatrickW: I think it's well-documented that in the USA, the criminalization of various drugs (leading to the resistance to actual research) was a direct result of the repeal of the Volstead Act, which repeal threatened the paychecks and power of the horde of Prohibition Agents. The connection of certain drugs to certain non-White minorities or undesirable classes, rightly or wrongly, sure didn't check the hysteria, either. We may hope that the current tide of States decriminalizing Cannabis, despite Federal Prohibition, will enable our return to the less-loony, fact-based world.
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Jun 3, 2015 9:19:00 GMT -5
Scientists are exactly the same species as used car salesmen and politicians.
I saw a great article recently discussing how scientists were viewed before Star Trek. They were not respected, to put it bluntly. The character of Spock painted a picture of scientists as logical, rational and honest, and that changed the public perception of scientists. But at the end of the day, almost all scientists are coming from the desire based world, just as are used car salesmen and politicians (and eveyone else). Scientists are used car salesmen selling a different product.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jun 3, 2015 19:25:53 GMT -5
Oh, so cynical! Although "scientists" are the same species (Homo sapiens), the orientation of real scientists, as opposed to experts-for-hire, is to boldly go looking for new knowledge/understanding. Not respected before Star Trek? Ah, yes; Galileo coming up against the Revealed Word Of GOD! Now there's an attitude worthy of the Taliban. I've never quite understood the all-too-common distain for "scientists", but having spent years under the regime of a religiously conservative step-mother who openly derided me as a "nasty little book-worm" who would rather read than play baseball, I may have a biased attitude, if not a "bad" one.
Given that you've painted scientists, used car salesmen, and politicians with the same broad brush, may I assume that you also include the purveyors of religion and social rectitude in that well-painted sepulcher?
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 4, 2015 2:15:44 GMT -5
Not to be forgotton here are the wealthy families -- the 1%. They are the ones who commission the studies and pay the scientists. In elections they especially fund politicians they want to win, but also fund all the others, so after they get elected they have their attention.
They then go to the politicians, tell them drugs are bad and black people are the enemy. There are certainly good and bad politicians, but most are technocrats and simply do what they're told.
They break our food into components, like salt, sugar and fat. They fund studies on each of these components, so people become more interested in the components then the food itself. Those components associated with small farmers like salt and sugar (for making things like jam, cheese or preserving meats) are bad. Of course processed food can be made with or without any of these components, and so in this way people are taught processed food is better.
They teach us what cars to buy, what politicians to vote for, what causes to support. They fund education, and control what we are taught.
We all know about the SSE, but in fact almost all 'official' organizations supporting seed or agriculture related causes in the US are influenced in this way. Not only the US, but all over the world. In particular the end result is that attention to particular causes are deflected, or organizations will have slightly different and competing goals.
It's often very easy to track this money. If you go to the websites of the Rockefellers, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman-Sachs or others, they are often quite open about where their money goes. Sometimes you have to go digging in their financial statements. You can then go to the places that receive this money, and see where they in turn give money to.
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Jun 4, 2015 12:53:06 GMT -5
Oh, so cynical! Although "scientists" are the same species (Homo sapiens), the orientation of real scientists, as opposed to experts-for-hire, is to boldly go looking for new knowledge/understanding. Not respected before Star Trek? Ah, yes; Galileo coming up against the Revealed Word Of GOD! Now there's an attitude worthy of the Taliban. I've never quite understood the all-too-common distain for "scientists", but having spent years under the regime of a religiously conservative step-mother who openly derided me as a "nasty little book-worm" who would rather read than play baseball, I may have a biased attitude, if not a "bad" one. Given that you've painted scientists, used car salesmen, and politicians with the same broad brush, may I assume that you also include the purveyors of religion and social rectitude in that well-painted sepulcher? They're all homo sapiens. There are good and bad in every position and every profession. Unfortunately, the more power, influence, and/or money they get, the more corrupted they become. |
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Jun 4, 2015 12:53:55 GMT -5
Not to be forgotton here are the wealthy families -- the 1%. They are the ones who commission the studies and pay the scientists. In elections they especially fund politicians they want to win, but also fund all the others, so after they get elected they have their attention. They then go to the politicians, tell them drugs are bad and black people are the enemy. There are certainly good and bad politicians, but most are technocrats and simply do what they're told. They break our food into components, like salt, sugar and fat. They fund studies on each of these components, so people become more interested in the components then the food itself. Those components associated with small farmers like salt and sugar (for making things like jam, cheese or preserving meats) are bad. Of course processed food can be made with or without any of these components, and so in this way people are taught processed food is better. They teach us what cars to buy, what politicians to vote for, what causes to support. They fund education, and control what we are taught. We all know about the SSE, but in fact almost all 'official' organizations supporting seed or agriculture related causes in the US are influenced in this way. Not only the US, but all over the world. In particular the end result is that attention to particular causes are deflected, or organizations will have slightly different and competing goals. It's often very easy to track this money. If you go to the websites of the Rockefellers, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman-Sachs or others, they are often quite open about where their money goes. Sometimes you have to go digging in their financial statements. You can then go to the places that receive this money, and see where they in turn give money to. Oh so true. |
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jun 4, 2015 21:32:48 GMT -5
I certainly won't contradict either of you about the corrupting influence of size/power. The whole point of great scientists/politicians/religious leaders/used car salesmen is that they rise above the self-serving common denominator of their profession/trade/interest group, to understand/serve the interests of their greater society; in a small community, even a used-car salesman is constrained by community awareness of shitty dealings.
I heard today a small item about "the 1%" which, while noting the adverse effects of "the 1%" on the other 99% of humanity, pointed out that we humans, in toto, ARE the 1% (really much less), that are exploiting and adversely affecting the rest of the Biosphere. Evidence grows (sorry; it comes from scientists) that Mother Nature is increasingly aware of our stupid short-sightedness, and is starting to bite us off, like the blood-sucking ticks we are becoming.
|
|
