Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression

ISAW · 04-03-2011 11:40pm

RGDATA! wrote: »

for the second time in two pages - prostitution is legal in this country.

anyone offering sexual services for money is offering prostituting. it is illegal for anyone to offers his or her services as a prostitute to another person. it isn't illegal to have sex with someone and ask for a donation for the sex afterwards but I doubt that happens much.

and i can't imagine anybody has ever campaigned to make "child abuse" legal here.

So what? If they did is it sufficient reason to allow it?

maccored · 05-03-2011 12:36am

ISAW wrote: »

So am I.

http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/crops/4487/eopr-4487.asp

Published in this century and not 50 years ago post war!

Note the "what if" in the title? Where is the link to this documentary?

Which factory? what is the name of the scientists? where did they publish their research?

I'm telling you noone here knows since you have not shown

1, whothey are
2. what you are claiming they published?

What Harvard papers? Have you a source?

seriously, Im not really bothered by your demands for information. As I said, Im not here to educate, and to be honest Im not interested in debating with you one tiny bit. if you dont want to believe cannabis has medical properties, then thats fine by me. As i said, no skin off my nose.

KStolen · 05-03-2011 1:48am

anyone offering sexual services for money is offering prostituting. it is illegal for anyone to offers his or her services as a prostitute to another person.

It's illegal to solicit prostitution. That's not the same thing as prostitution being illegal, which it is not.

Go-Go-Gadget · 05-03-2011 3:25am

For anyone interested in the anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20649976

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435

bladder dysfunction:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290238

pain and spasticity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142261

cardiovascular disease:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946323

Can't be bothered posting more but it's all online for people looking for information.

Tip: Stay away from random sites as they will be biased, websites made by pro or anti cannabis activists should not be confused with medical/scientific journals.

ISAW · 05-03-2011 7:04am

funkt wrote: »

im reading some of the comments here and i canot believe them,

so what? I can't believe I can't believe it's not butter is not actually butter but it isn't actually butter.
This isn't about what you or I can or can't believe. It is about facts. Care to produce some?

lots of people that have no idea what they are talking about trying 2 argue a point

Touché! Where is your evidence supporting what you claim?

anyone who thinks weed should not be legal should take a look at some non bias reserch on the matter and then come back here,you will find some very intresting information

What non biased research? where is it??? And where is the biased research for that matter?

about how and why it became illigal

Lets follow the reasoning here - suppose it was made illegal for a bad reason...
so if tobacco was made illegal by Queen Elizabeth I because she thought it made you sterile and it remained so today we should legalise it even if we found out in the meantime that it causes cancer and is addictive?

and the fact that thare hasent been one recorded death in medical history should become apparent fairly quickly it is infact 100% imposable to overdose!

so what? Gambling is not a cause of death but that is highly regulated. Basically all you are saying here is "legalise it because it is does not cause direct death". Nor does loaning money to people who can't afford it and causing a sub prime collapse cause death but it isn't a wise thing to do is it?

if i have a smoke i will gladly sit down with my friends chat and watch a dvd

An if you don't have one what is to stop you watching the same DVD?

ive never herd of anyone having too much to smoke puking on the street fighting or dancing like a bellend

Maybe you should sit down and use a dictionary but I am one to talk about that

This amounts to "legalise pot because pot smokers don't use attack aircraft on crowds of civilians in Libya". The fact that cannabis does not cause violent behaviour and does not kill people directly is not really very relevant.

if any of you have kids over the age of 16 it is highly likley they have atleast tried weed wudnt you prefer they buy it in a shop rather than a"drug dealer"

I'd prefer they didn't smoke at all including tobacco which smoking cannabis usually entails.

i think it should be legal it makes no sence atall that it is illigal

But what are your reasons?

hemp is also an extremly useful material

I agree. Make all these useful elements legal. As they are See my link to the Teagasc research above.
http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/crops/4487/eopr-4487.asp

ISAW · 05-03-2011 7:08am

KStolen wrote: »

It's illegal to solicit prostitution. That's not the same thing as prostitution being illegal, which it is not.

It is illegal for anyone to offers his or her services as a prostitute to another person. Prostitution as I see it is offering sex for money. If you think prostitution is only having sex without money involved then fair enough I'll agree with you and offering sex without money involved is legal. I don't consider it wise behavior but agree that having sex for some people is allowed. Even without money involved it is still highly regulated.

Go-Go-Gadget · 05-03-2011 7:11am

ISAW, I posted your unbiased evidence right above your post.

ISAW · 05-03-2011 7:37am

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

For anyone interested in the anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20649976

Which concludes:

CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive breast cancer.

preclinical evidence i.e. never tested on humans and measured on humans. Done on mice in this case. It would be illegal to market asprin under such trials.
Also this is an argument for using cannabis for breast cancer treatment and not as a free recreational drug.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435

recent studies have focused on the role of cannabinoid receptor agonists (both CB(1) and CB(2)) in the treatment of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. This review will summarize the anti-cancer properties of the cannabinoids, discuss their potential mechanisms of action, as well as explore controversies surrounding the results.

Same story i.e. limited to preclinicaltrials on lab rats for breast cancer. Not clinical evidence.

bladder dysfunction:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21290238

Cannabinoids: potential targets for bladder dysfunction

Potential = not proven.

Abstract ends:

Systemic cannabinoids have effects on the lower urinary tract that may be able to become clinically useful; however, a much greater understanding of the mechanisms of cannabinoid receptors in control of the human lower urinary tract is necessary to facilitate development of novel cannabinoid drugs for treatment of pelvic disorders.

"Maybe in some medical treatments" does not = legalise fr recreational use.

pain and spasticity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142261

Abstract ends

None of the attempts to overcome the disadvantage of the narrow therapeutic index, either by changing the route of application or by formulating balanced cannabinoid preparations, have resulted in a major breakthrough. Therefore, different methods of administration and other types of cannabinoids, such as endocannabinoid modulators, should be tested in future trials.

i.e. no major evidence ; further research required.

cardiovascular disease:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946323

Title

The potential for clinical use of cannabinoids in treatment of cardiovascular diseases.

potential - QED

Can't be bothered posting more but it's all online for people looking for information.

Where? You haven't produced anything significant.

By the way I have no problem saying we should research and fund this field. Nor do I think any medical doctor would lose their licence if they prescribed cannabis as part of properly conducted research. I doubt a doctor would administer it with tobacco however.

Please look at what I have written. If you want cannabis legalised - this is the type of evidence you should be producing. But it is scant and only preliminary. Where are the trials in humans?

Tip: Stay away from random sites as they will be biased, websites made by pro or anti cannabis activists should not be confused with medical/scientific journals.

I agree. But they may still offer some evidence even if not peer reviewed. Non journal sites ( and boards.ie is one of these) will put a "spin" on the research as if it proves something for humans however - as you have done above.

ISAW · 05-03-2011 7:43am

maccored wrote: »

seriously, Im not really bothered by your demands for information. As I said, Im not here to educate, and to be honest Im not interested in debating with you one tiny bit. if you dont want to believe cannabis has medical properties, then thats fine by me. As i said, no skin off my nose.

So basically you cant support your unproven claims?
It isn't a question about what I want to believe. It is a question of you pushing your opinion as if it was a fact!

Are you happy to admit the positive clinical medical or other properties of cannabis are not supported by evidence even though you claimed such evidence exists?

A standard rule in argumentation is “he who asserts must prove,” meaning that the writer bears full responsibility to prove that his or her claims are true. Writers and speakers, especially when cornered with tough questions, often speak authoritatively, but they sometimes assume that their assertions are valid and place the onus of proof onto the audience.

QED
...
If someone claims to know a fact, always look at its source. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid (and cannot be considered valid anyway until proven otherwise). The audience does not bear any responsibility to prove the speaker’s arguments.

As I said, Im not here to educate,

This is basically a claim that you are right in FACT and a shift of the burden of evidence for that fact onto me! Carry your own burden and prove your own claims!

QED
...
This fallacy is also called an “appeal to ignorance” because the action of passing this responsibility onto the audience suggests that a group of unprepared non-experts is appearing qualified to speak, when they clearly are not.

RGDATA! · 05-03-2011 11:20am

ISAW wrote: »

So what? If they did is it sufficient reason to allow it?

no, obviously not, i just don't understand why you've been harping that point as if anyone would disagree with you.

Cosimo Salvatore · 05-03-2011 1:20pm

I saw a problem. I saw a deep problem that should have been assessed. Then, I saw a serious personality disorder. I thought this was bad. Then I saw a brick wall, a genuine problem. I saw a brick wall. It was a very high wall. It wasn't even funny anymore. I saw many, many things, I saw somebody, who in my opinion was completely & entirely unreasonable. I had a genuine disbelief how any one person, could have possibly been so unreasonable. I saw something interesting, something I couldn't quite put my finger on. I saw something that just didn't seem right. Then, I saw something that made ridiculous comparisons to things that were irrelevant to the topic at hand. I couldn't believe my eyes, what was I seeing ? What was this before my eyes ?

I saw something stubborn. It was very, very stubborn. I couldn't understand what I saw. What I saw was unnatural. I simply could not understand what I saw. All I know was, What I saw was crazy. I saw opinions that were very dated and completely unrealistic. I didn't know what to think. I saw something fairly sickening to be honest. What I saw, was somebody with too much time on their hands. I saw somebody who needed to take a step back. I saw somebody who should have realised that people have always smoked cannabis recreationally and always will. But he was crazy. What I saw was a problem. I saw a massive problem. I saw a problem that could not be fixed. It was very very bad. It was boring and predictable at that stage. I saw somebody that looked to have issues.

I saw something completely unreasonable. I saw something with issues. I didn't know what it was.

ordinarywoman · 05-03-2011 1:53pm

i saw that too!!

Shulgin · 05-03-2011 1:56pm

I saw your saw! :pac:

In fairness, arguing down to the level he is dragging everyone to completely misses the whole point of the issue. God help us if everything had to be justified down to that degree. jeeze.

Cosimo Salvatore wrote: »

I saw a problem. I saw a deep problem that should have been assessed. Then, I saw a serious personality disorder. I thought this was bad. Then I saw a brick wall, a genuine problem. I saw a brick wall. It was a very high wall. It wasn't even funny anymore. I saw many, many things, I saw somebody, who in my opinion was completely & entirely unreasonable. I had a genuine disbelief how any one person, could have possibly been so unreasonable. I saw something interesting, something I couldn't quite put my finger on. I saw something that just didn't seem right. Then, I saw something that made ridiculous comparisons to things that were irrelevant to the topic at hand. I couldn't believe my eyes, what was I seeing ? What was this before my eyes ?

I saw something stubborn. It was very, very stubborn. I couldn't understand what I saw. What I saw was unnatural. I simply could not understand what I saw. All I know was, What I saw was crazy. I saw opinions that were very dated and completely unrealistic. I didn't know what to think. I saw something fairly sickening to be honest. What I saw, was somebody with too much time on their hands. I saw somebody who needed to take a step back. I saw somebody who should have realised that people have always smoked cannabis recreationally and always will. But he was crazy. What I saw was a problem. I saw a massive problem. I saw a problem that could not be fixed. It was very very bad. It was boring and predictable at that stage. I saw somebody that looked to have issues.

I saw something completely unreasonable. I saw something with issues. I didn't know what it was.

whoopdedoo · 05-03-2011 3:40pm

can I get an AMEN!?!

irish pavee · 05-03-2011 7:01pm

weedfreedomtinp wrote: »

Tobacco kills 750.000 per year

Alcohol kills 400.000 per year

coffee kills 4.500 per year

aspirin kills 7.500 per year

Cannabis Kills 0 what you say 0 dont believe me look in google videos for a video called

THE UNION , THE BUSINESS BEHIND CANNABIS ,,,

Its all in it ,,

from professors from Harvard uni and many more top Law official's

THE UNION , THE BUSINESS BEHIND CANNABIS ,,,

when you see the video please comment on this truly

it wount be you that will be takeing it. its young kid if ther smorking now wath will they by doing if that was legal thenk be 4 you talk

Go-Go-Gadget · 05-03-2011 7:29pm

I take it that you are not a scientist ISAW. You come across as someone ignorant and stuck in their ways. You see a normal person does not immediately try to rip apart someone else's opinion. You seem to know little on the subject but immediately feel you are right. Perhaps go back and do some more reading.

Look at the success of legalizing cannabis in California for medical use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

The problem is, clinical trials are very difficult to carry out due to the ban in so many countries and the stigma connected to cannabis in people like you. There's no doubt in my mind that cannabinoids will be used in Ireland as a treatment for certain patients one day. But that change wont happen for a while, not until the "ignore all proof, condemn it because its always been bad in my mind" faction is educated or most likely until they are long gone and the younger generations of a more tolerant society in which the benefits are not covered up are in the position to make a change.

I'd give it 20 years maybe 30.

Johnboy1951 · 06-03-2011 2:11am

In essence, the arguments as they are presented are meaningless to most who want to use MJ for whatever purpose .... medicinal or recreational.
The law as it stands is seen as a foolish law by most of those ..... and apparently they make up a large section of the population. So the law is ignored or avoided ..... which unfortunately has the effect of driving those people into the company of drug dealers and other 'unsavoury' characters. People with whom most of the users would not normally associate.
It - the law as it stands - also causes those people to support the illegal activities of the dealers which for the most part are not confined to the supply of MJ.

I believe that society would be better served if the supply and consumption of MJ was regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.

I further believe this will happen. When is a different matter of course. I suspect not for a decade or two.

As to the subject of this thread ..... yes I could see that changes would be helpful to the economy and to society as a whole. On their own, those changes would not be the answer to our economic ills, but they would contribute another source of income for the state, release policing resources for more serious matters, and help to isolate the criminal element from otherwise (apart from the use of MJ) law abiding members of society.

regards.

whoopdedoo · 06-03-2011 1:17pm

irish pavee wrote: »

it wount be you that will be takeing it. its young kid if ther smorking now wath will they by doing if that was legal thenk be 4 you talk

see Johnnyboys post, he speaks sense and his words flow

WeeBushy · 06-03-2011 2:33pm

irish pavee wrote: »

it wount be you that will be takeing it. its young kid if ther smorking now wath will they by doing if that was legal thenk be 4 you talk

What the hell are you trying to say

whoopdedoo · 06-03-2011 2:39pm

WeeBushy wrote: »

What the hell are you trying to say

I think the answer you seek is in the posters username tbh

typical pavee point of view, no allowance for the travelling community being involved in drug importation themselves

ISAW · 06-03-2011 5:58pm

RGDATA! wrote: »

no, obviously not, i just don't understand why you've been harping that point as if anyone would disagree with you.

Your words

and i can't imagine anybody has ever campaigned to make "child abuse" legal here.

[

clearly I was replying to the principle of legalising something because someone enjoys it. If some enjoys child abuse or the sexual exploitation of women you agree that is not a reason to legalise it. Similarly just because people enjoy cannabis that is not sufficient reason to legalise it.

ISAW · 06-03-2011 6:01pm

Cosimo Salvatore wrote: »

I saw a problem. I saw a deep problem that should have been assessed. Then, I saw a serious personality disorder. I thought this was bad. Then I saw a brick wall, a genuine problem. I saw a brick wall. It was a very high wall. It wasn't even funny anymore. I saw many, many things, I saw somebody, who in my opinion was completely & entirely unreasonable. I had a genuine disbelief how any one person, could have possibly been so unreasonable. I saw something interesting, something I couldn't quite put my finger on. I saw something that just didn't seem right. Then, I saw something that made ridiculous comparisons to things that were irrelevant to the topic at hand. I couldn't believe my eyes, what was I seeing ? What was this before my eyes ?

I saw something stubborn. It was very, very stubborn. I couldn't understand what I saw. What I saw was unnatural. I simply could not understand what I saw. All I know was, What I saw was crazy. I saw opinions that were very dated and completely unrealistic. I didn't know what to think. I saw something fairly sickening to be honest. What I saw, was somebody with too much time on their hands. I saw somebody who needed to take a step back. I saw somebody who should have realised that people have always smoked cannabis recreationally and always will. But he was crazy. What I saw was a problem. I saw a massive problem. I saw a problem that could not be fixed. It was very very bad. It was boring and predictable at that stage. I saw somebody that looked to have issues.

I saw something completely unreasonable. I saw something with issues. I didn't know what it was.

to whom are you referring? Just to clarify - you are not referring to me are you? Don't fudge your answer please. Do you disassociate me from all of the above comments and accepot they are not a description of ISAW?

ISAW · 06-03-2011 6:15pm

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

I take it that you are not a scientist ISAW.

You would be wrong.

You come across as someone ignorant and stuck in their ways.

On what evidence do you base that unsupported opinion?

You see a normal person does not immediately try to rip apart someone else's opinion.

what is normal and why is not being normal a problem to you?

You seem to know little on the subject

You base this calim on WHat evidence?

but immediately feel you are right.

Where did I say i was right or have to prove anything? I stated that people claiming that cannabis should be legalised have to support their claim with evidence. I haven't seen any strong evidence.

Perhaps go back and do some more reading.

As i have debunked fairly much all the so called medical evidence perhaps you should go and get some?

Look at the success of legalizing cannabis in California for medical use.

In what way is the following wikipedia link you supply showing a "success"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

The problem is, clinical trials are very difficult to carry out due to the ban in so many countries and the stigma connected to cannabis in people like you.
[/quoet]

Absolute nonsense! I'd be happy to partake in such a trial if a proper trial was offered. I suffer from a condition which might well be assisted by cannabis. I also suggest you look up "thalidomide" .

There's no doubt in my mind that cannabinoids will be used in Ireland as a treatment for certain patients one day.

So what? There is no doubt in people's mind we will have abortion, the death penalty, the birch, the end of the world will come in five years time. Oil will reach $550 a barrel... so what? If you make a claim it is for you to support it. "I believe" is an opinion I believe this is true because of evidence 1 fact 2 and evidence 3 is something a bit stronger. Don't you agree?

But that change wont happen for a while, not until the "ignore all proof,

Care to produce what proof you claim i ave ignored?

Again one word - thalidomide!

condemn it because its always been bad in my mind" faction

Where did I condemn cannabis or say it has always been bad?

is educated or most likely until they are long gone and the younger generations of a more tolerant society in which the benefits are not covered up are in the position to make a change.

While I am prepared to hear your case you have shown that you are totally intolerant of people who ask you to produce supporting evidence.

ISAW · 06-03-2011 6:20pm

Shulgin wrote: »

I saw your saw! :pac:

In fairness, arguing down to the level he is dragging everyone to completely misses the whole point of the issue. God help us if everything had to be justified down to that degree. jeeze.

I diodnt bring up a "medical journals say cannabis should be legalised" argument.

I asked people to provide the so called medical evidence showing sweeping claims for curing cancer etc.

I showed how the evidence they prevented was mostly in vitro and whenever in vivo was not in humans. the people who claimed journals supported their argument hadent read the journals and had read secondary or tertiary interpretations of it. If you want to drink the water go to the well. Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. I haven't attacked anyone here and I do not deserve the personal attacks i am getting for asking those claiming cannabis should be legalised to provide evidence supporting their claim.

ISAW · 06-03-2011 6:22pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I

I believe that society would be better served if the supply and consumption of MJ was regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.

Fair enough. what EVIDENCE have you to support this belief?

ordinarywoman · 06-03-2011 7:12pm

http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/220-cannabis-science-extracts-kill-cancer-cells.html

Cannabis Science Extracts Kill Cancer Cells In Cancer Patients Being Treated Through Its Licensed Distributor Rockbrook

February 22, 2011
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB:CBIS.ob - News) a pioneering U.S. biotech company developing pharmaceutical cannabis (marijuana derivative) products, is pleased to announce that numerous patients are reporting that Cannabis Science extract treatments are killing cancer cells. Cannabis Science, in conjunction with Rockbrook, its Colorado-licensed dispensary, consulted with a variety of cancer patients who were seeking to inform themselves of the current peer reviewed scientific literature, regarding the historical use of cannabis to treat "tumors”. Unlike most conventional cancer treatments, cannabis has an outstanding safety profile, and patients in states with medical marijuana laws are able to make an informed decision to legally try various cannabis preparations to determine what is most effective for their particular condition.
Some of these scientifically informed patients have chosen to self-administer Cannabis Science extracts supplied by Rockbrook to treat their own cancers. Cannabis Science is delighted that patients are reporting dramatic improvements in their conditions, including basal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer accompanied by COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), ovarian cancer, and glioma.

http://www.cannabisscience.com/download/cancer_extract_kills.pdf

shows photographic evidence of basal cell carcemona, a lesion on a womans nostril cured over a 10 day period, surgical intervention not required.

and no mention of in vitro, no rats just humans.

ordinarywoman · 06-03-2011 7:25pm

and What about the children you ask??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuPqLVEnd7A

One of Montana's youngest medical cannabis card holders is Cash Hyde, a 2 ½-year-old boy who battled a brain tumor and won.

Cash's dad, Michael Hyde, says the drug helped Cash with his battle.

"I believe that, you know, Cash's with us for a lot of reasons, one of them I would have to say is the power of prayer, one he's a walking miracle and the other one is he is a patient of medical cannabis, which has I think greatly benefited his battle," said Hyde.

http://www.kbzk.com/news/toddler-is-one-of-youngest-medical-marijuana-patient...

More Humans!

ISAW · 06-03-2011 10:49pm

ordinarywoman wrote: »

http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/220-cannabis-science-extracts-kill-cancer-cells.html

Cannabis Science Extracts Kill Cancer Cells In Cancer Patients Being Treated Through Its Licensed Distributor Rockbrook

February 22, 2011
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB:CBIS.ob - News) a pioneering U.S. biotech company developing pharmaceutical cannabis (marijuana derivative) products, is pleased to announce

i.e. this is a press release not a scientific paper

that numerous patients are reporting that Cannabis Science extract treatments are killing cancer cells.

That's waffle! How do "numerous patients" know? HOW MANY "numerous patients"? Two?
What specific cancer?

Cannabis Science, in conjunction with Rockbrook, its Colorado-licensed dispensary, consulted with a variety of cancer patients who were seeking to inform themselves of the current peer reviewed scientific literature, regarding the historical use of cannabis to treat "tumors”.

EXACTLY! what peer review literature (not a press release)? where is this reviewed literature?

snip more waffle.

Some of these scientifically informed patients

How are they "scientifically informed"? What qualifications have they? What is theior publication record?

have chosen to self-administer Cannabis Science extracts supplied by Rockbrook to treat their own cancers.

Treat what form of cancers? Warts?
What is their case history?
What are the protoco9ls and doseages involved?

Cannabis Science is delighted that patients are reporting dramatic improvements in their conditions, including basal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer accompanied by COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), ovarian cancer, and glioma.

ISAW is happy to announce that we asked numerous cancer patients to pray and numerous patients to stand on their heads and others to hop[ on one foot. ISAW is happy to announce each group reported positive effects on their cancer.

http://www.cannabisscience.com/download/cancer_extract_kills.pdf

shows photographic evidence of basal cell carcemona, a lesion on a womans nostril cured over a 10 day period, surgical intervention not required.

and no mention of in vitro, no rats just humans.

Didn't you read it?
Actually of the six references supplied on that paper you will find emphasis added in bold by me:

Bilkei-Gorzo, A. et al. Early onset of aging-like changes is restricted to cognitive abilities and
skin structure in Cnr1(-/-) mice. Neurobiol Aging (2010).

Casanova, M. L. et al. Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesisin vivo by activation
of cannabinoid receptors. J Clin Invest 111, 43-50 (2003)..

The title of this paper is "Medical Marijuana, A Cure for Cancer?"

Note the question mark in the title?

It also stated alternative therapies that included the topical application
of cannabis extracts were tried.
How do you know it wasn't one of the other included therapies?

Finally look at what the motivation for this by a corporate entity is:
Scientific publ;ication or hype to solicit a 34% share price rise?

http://www.stockmarketsreview.com/news/109139/
Which published literally word for word the press release- just as you did

Johnboy1951 · 07-03-2011 12:45am

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough. what EVIDENCE have you to support this belief?

Should you believe my belief is unfounded you are welcome to debunk it, but I have no intention of trying to persuade anyone to my beliefs.

As the basis of my belief is outlined in my post I have nothing further to add to it.

regards.

ISAW · 07-03-2011 11:37am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Should you believe my belief is unfounded you are welcome to debunk it, but I have no intention of trying to persuade anyone to my beliefs.

Fair enough. So all you supply is opinion and no actual facts or evidence support or inform your opinion?

As the basis of my belief is outlined in my post I have nothing further to add to it.

regards.

Yawn. Look up "proving a negative"
"appeal to ignorance", "argument from authority" and "shifting the burden"
under "logical fallacy"

The fact that you can't be bothered to support your own unsupported claim only compounds your fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Quote:
in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
so we are all meant to assume your are right just because you say there is evidence which of course you fail to produce?

Whatever next?- assume people are guilty in a court of law?

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm
A standard rule in argumentation is “he who asserts must prove,” meaning that the writer bears full responsibility to prove that his or her claims are true. Writers and speakers, especially when cornered with tough questions, often speak authoritatively, but they sometimes assume that their assertions are valid and place the onus of proof onto the audience.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

If someone claims to know a fact, always look at its source. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid (and cannot be considered valid anyway until proven otherwise). The audience does not bear any responsibility to prove the speaker’s arguments.

This fallacy is also called an “appeal to ignorance” because the action of passing this responsibility onto the audience suggests that a group of unprepared non-experts is appearing qualified to speak, when they clearly are not.

Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression

Comments