simple cure for cancer found, but cant be patented

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by dealwithit, May 23, 2011.

  1. You can't possibly think that all of those "herbs" are perfect treatments for all your ailments and they have no negative side effects whatsoever. You can't possibly be that simple.

    You haven't posted any facts, and I'm sure as hell not interested. :wave:
     
  2. dumb signature ^
    he never said he posted facts, and you saying your not interested shows something
     
  3. ^ Dumb signature.

    Dumber post.
     
  4. Yet I never said they were the perfect treatment for all aliments, neither did i say they could be without side effects.

    You did however drop an absolute bombshell of stupidity when you assumed the EU did genuinely ban herbal medicines for 'health and safety reasons' despite the glaringly obvious paradox that the sale of cigarettes and alcohol is legal (and yet they are proven tool of self-genocide)

    You also have a recurring theme of severe weakness in your arguments, in that you constantly try to trivialise, take out of context and exaggerate what I'm relaying to you, in a desperate attempt to score points.

    You must be cold sitting in everybody's intellectual shadow.
     
  5. Okay, well you've answered your own question right there. They're not perfect treatments and they do have side effects. That's probably why they're not being sold as medicine.

    That's not a paradox at all. Tobacco and alcohol are not sold as "medicine," they are sold as recreational drugs. I'm sure you can buy all of your stupid-ass "herbs" for recreation, but no doctor or medical official in their right mind is going to use that shit to treat illnesses.

    I'm not going to waste my time putting together a serious rebuttal to any of the stupid shit you've said. You make radical (and sometimes contradictory) claims and try to back them up with anecdotal evidence from non-credible sources, or you just don't even bother to find evidence and try to defame the character of the people you're arguing with (I.E. calling them stupid). I don't care about scoring "points," I just hate to see so much ignorance.

    I'm quite warm, actually.
     
  6. I'd just like to point out that alcohol and tobacco are legal due to the stubbornness of social norms, not because the government believes or even claims that they are safe. The DEA acknowledges the destruction caused by the legal drugs and would, in principal, be against banning every psychoactive stronger than caffeine. But because the overwhelming majority of the country drinks (and until recently, a huge portion smoked tobacco), they recognize that attempts to outlaw these things are pointless. The "prohibition era" of the early 30s proved that Americans won't stop drinking no matter what the government says, and while smoking has decreased dramatically in recent decades, there are still plenty of people willing to put up with the government's campaigns to make smokers miserable until they quit.

    Basically, which drugs are legal in a given society reflects what has commonly and acceptably been used throughout that society's history. It's why peyote is legal for use in Native American Church rituals and illegal for everyone else, and why LSD is more feared than alcohol despite alcohol being ridiculously more dangerous. Certain drugs are illegal because they are relatively new and strange to our culture as a whole, and people often fear and hate things that are new and unfamiliar. You make it sound like a conspiracy, but it's just a matter of which drugs society is comfortable accepting.
     

Share This Page