I'm pretty open about being many things and my support for weed obviously, who of us isn't openly supporting it? But I made a post on another forums where they know I smoke. I delivered my case logically and with concrete, linked sources and because I smoke, everything I say somehow becomes invalid? I'm not even high right now, nor when I posted that, so does anyone else get that elsewhere on the web? Reminds me of logos, ethos and pathos, the world widely rejects logos and ethos, but seems to blindly support pathos.
I don't get it on the web, just in reality. Several people I know who hate weed, I've tried to educate, and their replies are always the same old bullshit; "Well they would write that because they probably smoke it too."
I get that in real life sometimes. Some people aren't open minded and their opinion is written in stone until the day they die.
my bad i was using part deaf as a metaphor for being unwilling, sorry for any offence. i agree completely with what you said.
No offense, how would you know, right? But yeah, people will not hear logic, even when there is overwhelming evidence they're wrong.
if someone is anti-weed i have one question for them: "Have you ever ingested marijuana in any form?" If they say no, then their argument is invalid, ignorant, and plain old annoying.
I comment in the news a lot, so I get it all the time! But in the comments section, you are dealing with a large group of readers, and will get people who ARE open-minded enough to look up the links, as well as those who "know" cannabis is evil incarnate! I have found it is harder for the prohibitionists to pull that sort of BS if you have all of your studies from PubMed (where their doctor gets his information, hopefully). If they DARE say your sources are "weak", ask them, "Do they believe their government or not?" PubMed is a "dot gov" site, and most definitely NOT a front for "High Times"! (Had to slip this in! A link to the "infamous" 507 patent- where the US Government holds the rights to a medical patent on phytocannabinoids! It's not PubMed, but it is a "goodie"!) US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants (full - 2003) (Assignee (owner)- the US GOVERNMENT!) http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507/fulltext.html You can tell the PubMed studies in "Granny Storm Crow's List" because the links all start with a "www.ncbi" - Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia with a Philadelphia chromosome mutation (full – 2013) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901602/ (edit-dang, it shortened it!) Usually, the prohibitionist ranters put their foot into their mouths! Leaving me an opening to use the titles of PubMed studies to destroy their rant! I know I will NEVER get through to most of the ranters, so I use them as a "soap box" to show others the facts! However, I have gotten at least one total prohibitionist to agree that medical use IS valid after he actually read the studies! He was an exception, but it can be done! There are those people who will remain "willfully ignorant", even when faced with medical studies. Their minds are made up (as are a lot of their so-called "facts" ). But the majority of people reading the post will weigh the validity of what you, and the prohibitionist, are presenting to the forum. When you present the facts, and back them up with PubMed studies, it doesn't matter what the ranter says or thinks. You have the medical facts and he doesn't! Just hang in there! Don't let him get to you, hon! You ARE reaching the sane people in the forum! Just keep presenting the facts clearly and calmly. Remember to be careful with your spelling and grammar! Poor spelling can make a person seem less educated, and therefore, less believable. Read your posts one last time before hitting the POST button. To get your free copy of the List, PM me your email address, or check out the bottom of my sig for my email address. Granny