i see a guy whos 80 and been smokin since hes 12, he don't look too bad i see a guy whos been smokin cigs since hes like 17 or so lets say, hes 80, at this point he probably can't breathe well. common sense would tell me that smoking weed isn't nearly as bad as other shit
still talking about that, listenguys the reason its not as bad, is because cigarette smokers smoke like a pack a day. weed smokers dont take in nearly as much smoke. smoking dosnt do any permanent damage to your lungs if u give it time to heal every now and then.
Definition of MEDICINAL from Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online (so we know it can't be trusted) 1: tending or used to cure disease or relieve pain says nothing about used to cure a disease without side effects or with less side effects than other dosage forms. And no there wouldn't be a medicinal bong, that's like a medicinal syringe.
please show me one single reliable source that says that smoking is not an accepted dosage form of medicine, not just MJ. Obviously MJ being a schedule 1 means you won't find a source about it specifically but I'm sure you can't grasp that one without pretending like it proves your point again.
That's a good point. Just watch any commercial for some big pharma concoction and the side-effects sound worse than the ailment it is supposedly 'curing'.
Let's start with this. Please elaborate. Why are all .com websites automatically not credible sources?
I think AlienBlood assumes that .com (commercial, for-profit) cannot be credible. Just because something is a part of the free market, doesn't mean it lacks integrity. That's something he won't understand though. He would rather have everything end in ".gov"
I didn't say automatically. But they must be looked over with caution and when people are sourcing information that flies directly in the face of medical science from .com websites then that information can be discarded.
Don't call him out on his flip-flops. He will have a valid way to explain both statements. Just give him time meow.
Is a stopped clock a legit source of the time if you happen to look at it one of the 2 times it's right? Of course not, you will still consider it a non credible source of the time.
^^ scratches head?!? Are ALL .com sites non-credible according to your one statement? Does the fact that .com ends a certain domain address automatically make it biased and thus not trustworthy as you claimed? Originally Posted by AlienBlood First of all .com websites aren't credible sources. Try again.
Most rules have exceptions. But when you're already peddling information that is rejected by the greater medical community and it's a .com website that's 2 strikes.
I know this isn't regarding RP and the Republican Primaries, but: “Barack Obama is committing the same crimes [as Bush and Cheney], in fact worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we’re creating more enemies, he’s violating international law, he’s not constitutionally authorized to do what he’s doing, he’s using State secrets, he’s engaging in illegal surveillance, the CIA is running wild without any kind of circumsribed legal standards or disclosure . . . why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.” -Ralph Nader
what information has been posted that is "rejected by the greater medical community"? It's rejected by you(someone with zero medical experience and seemingly zero understanding of medicine) and you keep claiming that doctors reject it, but you don't even have a .com source for that, just your own opinionated view. smoking marijuana is just as medicinal as vaping or eating it, your reasoning all relies on MJ not being prescribed and therefore 99% of doctors won't stand up in defense of it, there's too much at stake for them.