Quake3World

Good! That shit needs to be taken out of our lives, and the sooner the better. Fucking potheads need to grow up and get a sense of purpose!

yeah i agree with canis. fuck drugs.

fuck the internet also. these people wasting all that time when they could be doing something contructive and have some sense of purpose!

heh, like it was ever gunna get legalised

also magies in UK are now class A after summer :/

R00k wrote:So much for states' rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotu ... index.html

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

The decision is a sound one, since ruling otherwise would essentially say that federal law doesn't have to be obeyed.

But now the only option is somehow getting the federal law overturned.

It's total bullshit that's illegal medicinally to begin with....but since it is outlawed in the Federal Constitution that's the way it goes. We should be happy, in one sense, that the Federal Constitution is held up, because if it wasn't we'd have states like those down in the South completely tossing all their textbooks and handing out Bibles (not too far removed from what some are trying to do...but luckily there is a little bit about the separation of church and state...education as a whole is a state issue, but with the fed withholding funds unless state schools comply to NCLB-like standards, the federal government has found a nice way to regulate that too...).
So, don't get too worked up about 'so much for state's rights. In many other cases, you'd be happy that federal law trumped the states wishes and desires.

The root of the problem is federal law. It needs to be re-written, but I don't think it will....federal law supercedes state law in matters of trade, and I think that is part of it.

Geebs wrote:This just in: studies have proved that it doesn't really work anyway.

What about the brain's endogenous cannabinoids? The CB1 receptor? Anandamide and 2-arachidonyl glyceral?

CB1 receptors are found on GABA releasing neurons, as well as found in the amygdala, the brain stem, spinal cord, basal ganglia, cerebellum, hippocampus...


Read a good journal article on retrograde signalling and depolarization induced suppression of inhibition (aka DSI) -mentioned that binding of CB1 by cannabinoids had a number of effects - blocking presynaptic cells from releasing excitatory neurotransmitters...and if I am reading my notes correctly (I keep a bound notebook of my own comments and summaries of all the shit I read about science...but sometimes my shorthand writing gets real sloppy) but there is evidence to support that abnormally low numbers of CB1 receptors or faulty release of endogenous cannabinoids might be involved in phobias, post traumatic stress syndrom , and some chronic pain conditions (based on the finding that CB1 knockout mice failed to lose fear in a pain associated response - indicating that the endo-cannabinoids are important in diminishing bad feelings and pain triggered by reminders of past experiences).

There are even therapies in the works using THC homologues-

Ever prescribed Nabilone for nausea reduction in chemo patients? Its a THC analogue.
Dronabinol is a THC homolog that is used for appetite stimulation in AIDS patients (I think because it helps in nausea also)

...

Seems to simplify the issue a bit when you say "it doesn't work."

Guess it depends on what for....or maybe that CB1 receptor is just there for show?

its illegal cuz the illuminati wants illegal...any questions?

R00k wrote:As a doctor, I would think that you would agree people should have a right to try anything that has a chance of working, as long as they've been educated on all the risks involved.

I've been trained along the lines of patient-centred, multidisciplinary medicine and I'm as good as any of the doctors in my department at presenting risks and benefits to patients. However, increasingly I believe that people have the right to do what I tell them

I have no idea why marijuana is illegal when alcohol, tobacco and paracetamol are.

Geebs wrote:

R00k wrote:As a doctor, I would think that you would agree people should have a right to try anything that has a chance of working, as long as they've been educated on all the risks involved.

I've been trained along the lines of patient-centred, multidisciplinary medicine and I'm as good as any of the doctors in my department at presenting risks and benefits to patients. However, increasingly I believe that people have the right to do what I tell them

I have no idea why marijuana is illegal when alcohol, tobacco and paracetamol are.

I would guess a big part of the reason is simple - they can't control the production and distribution of it as easily as other drugs....

Freakaloin wrote:i thought conservatives were all about states rights? rofl...

The conservative judges voted against the law because of state's rights... The liberal judges were in the majority

Shmee wrote:To play devil's advocate here - every single one of you slinging the states' rights argument will spit on the concept when applied to laws concerning abortion and guns.

facT.

If you're going to accept life in America you must realize that states' right are 100% subordinate to federal law. Period. Changes to the entire system are required for any hot button issue. We had this little event called the Civil War over just such an issue way back in the day...

I'm all about states' rights when it comes to abortion. I am on guns as well, as long as every state recognizes the basic constitutional right to bear arms.

I think every state should be an island of its own, with different rules and regulations that make up its identity. That way people can live in the state that most closely mirrors the values they hold themselves.

If it weren't for power-hungry people who want to control what every state does, instead of just their own, then there would be a lot more alternatives for people who don't agree with certain 'values-based' legislation and such. I personally believe that was the way it was intended. A Republic of sovereign states that all subscribe and adhere to certain basic, commonly-recognized rights of all humans.

Before there were so many federal laws and regulations, there was a lot more diversity from state-to-state. I believe that if states' rights had held strongly all this time, we would have a society more closely resembling Europe, as far as cultural diversity goes. That was part of the great experiment.


Edit: And I don't personally subscribe to the belief that the Civil War ruined the ideal of states' rights, or that it made them irrelevant.

Slavery, being one issue, was unconstitutional already and had to be stopped - even if some of the founding minds owned slaves themselves.

The fact that the north fought back the south and didn't allow us to secede doesn't trample on states' rights either, IMHO. While I am a southerner who supports states' rights, I also realize that our attempt to secede was an attempt to escape the confines of the constitution, which is obviously unconstitutional and therefore had to be stopped if the republic was going to survive.

The states' rights do not include the right to secede from the republic if and when they want to. If that were one of the rights accorded states by the constitution, it obviously wouldn't be much of a republic.
A lot of the confusion comes from the fact that states' rights are not laid out or defined in the constitution. There are unalienable rights defined for every person, then there are limits placed on federal government and government in general, and then it basically says that all other rights and differences go to the states themselves to decide.

tnf wrote:

Geebs wrote:This just in: studies have proved that it doesn't really work anyway.

What about the brain's endogenous cannabinoids? The CB1 receptor? Anandamide and 2-arachidonyl glyceral?

CB1 receptors are found on GABA releasing neurons, as well as found in the amygdala, the brain stem, spinal cord, basal ganglia, cerebellum, hippocampus...


Read a good journal article on retrograde signalling and depolarization induced suppression of inhibition (aka DSI) -mentioned that binding of CB1 by cannabinoids had a number of effects - blocking presynaptic cells from releasing excitatory neurotransmitters...and if I am reading my notes correctly (I keep a bound notebook of my own comments and summaries of all the shit I read about science...but sometimes my shorthand writing gets real sloppy) but there is evidence to support that abnormally low numbers of CB1 receptors or faulty release of endogenous cannabinoids might be involved in phobias, post traumatic stress syndrom , and some chronic pain conditions (based on the finding that CB1 knockout mice failed to lose fear in a pain associated response - indicating that the endo-cannabinoids are important in diminishing bad feelings and pain triggered by reminders of past experiences).

There are even therapies in the works using THC homologues-

Ever prescribed Nabilone for nausea reduction in chemo patients? Its a THC analogue.
Dronabinol is a THC homolog that is used for appetite stimulation in AIDS patients (I think because it helps in nausea also)

...

Seems to simplify the issue a bit when you say "it doesn't work."

Guess it depends on what for....or maybe that CB1 receptor is just there for show?

I was curious, do any of you potheads know much about how your weed works?

I don't claim to know a lot about it - simply because I don't know in great detail about any drug's chemical and physiological reactions with the brain.

I know that thc is not a depressant, as is commonly thought, but actually a mild psychotropic classed drug. I know it's fat-soluble, so it has a tendency to reside in fatty parts of the body long after use (including certain parts of the brain). I know it isn't nearly as bad for you chemically and physiologically as alcohol, but it's especially bad on your lungs because of the massive amount of tar produced when it's burned (not a problem when you're vaporizing it, of course, but I have to wonder what happens to the tar when you cook with marijuana). It was also surprising to me though, that alcohol is just as bad or worse on your lungs as marijuana - or at least it is for people who consume excessively - because breathing it out is one of the ways your body releases alcohol to get it out of your system.