Ulterior Motives wrote:

Geldonyetich wrote:

Oh, so pot cures cancer now, eh?

Lol! Those pro-pot websites apparently don't have a maximum bullshit threshold to the articles they'll circulate.

Actually there have been numerous studies to this effect. It is given to cancer and AIDS patience to help with their appetite, nausea, and pain along with a wide variety of other diseases. With several studies showing that an active ingredient in marijuana prevents and even kills cell growth in cancerous cells.

If all else fails, Google it, or Wikipedia it. It's not just pot activist websites.

A friend of mine's mom had lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, the doctor said without treatment she would live six months. She starting smoking weed after this and continued smoking cigarettes. This was almost five years ago and she is still alive and never received any real medical treatment. The power of marijuana is real.

Hate to break it to you, but I learned to research my sources in school, and those sources are of absolutely lousy quality. They're not cited properly, if you dig into what was cited on any half-reputable source they listed, you see it's not saying what the site is saying it is. This is simply being used for false presentation.

You simply cannot take anything on a site with an agenda, like a pro-pot websites, as anything other than biased. Google and Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed sources, they are functionally useless for getting the real truth of a thing - the former because you'll trip over any idiot with a website who wants to make a claim - good HTML does not mean they're not lying to you through their teeth - and the later because Wikipedia's peer review is whoever's the fastest editor.

Take that at face value, as I'm not going to explain it further. I've been on more than one comment/forum thread with pro-pot people, and I know how desperate they are to misrepresent things in order to make their favorite habit legal.

I'm only going to do this once. I don't have time for this shit today.

Ulterior Motives wrote:

The American Association for Cancer Research

"These effects seemed to occur as the result of an inhibition of the Id-1 gene at the promoter level. Importantly, CBD did not inhibit invasiveness in cells that ectopically expressed Id-1. In conclusion, CBD represents the first nontoxic exogenous agent that can significantly decrease Id-1 expression in metastatic breast cancer cells leading to the down-regulation of tumor aggressiveness"

Only works to slow growth in a very specific type of breast cancer tumor as something that worked better than the other agents they tested on a petri dish. It's a world apart from reversing growth of all cancer in an actual living organism when compared to agents which may be even better at it.

Med Page Today

"The confidence intervals around the odds ratios were wide however, and the odds ratios did not show a dose response."

The results they had indicated that the dosage of Cannabidoids had a very weak correlation that could even be coincidental.

American Society for Clinical Investigation

"In summary, in this study we identify what we believe is a new route that links the ER stress response to the activation of autophagy and promotes the apoptotic death of tumor cells."

He's recommending it specifically because it is a cell killing agent, not as a cure.

Science Daily

"Part of the iVillage Your Total Health Network"

Not even close to a peer reviewed source.

Seriously, if science was able to reliably establish "holy shit, marijuana cures cancer" then we'd be using it in hospitals right now along side other agents that are banned for recreational drug use like morphine.

In fact, they're so willing to do that, that they prescribe it as a glaucoma treatment even though (http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/medical_marijua.php), "Advocates of medicinal marijuana cite evidence that hemp products can lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with glaucoma. However, these products are less effective than safer and more available medicines."

That's it, grasp at those straws. Sorry, my tolerance is over for the day. I get too wrapped up in these arguments, and nothing good ever comes on it, so we're agreeing to disagree here.

It's alright if your monitor wants to smoke some pot.

Ryuk25 wrote:

I use an HDMI cable to my laptop to my TV, it much better because then its 1080p

The monitor I linked too matches the specifications of an HD television.

and Also you have to leave the chair to go outside and have fresh air

I have a window directly next to me. If I want fresh air, all I have to do is open it.

and play some football and stuff

Yeah, not all of us are sports fans. I don't like sport, I find sport boring and the fact "professionals" get paid in the millions to play it insulting.

also to get a drink

Got me there. Good thing the closest drinks fridge is, ohh, five metres from me and my chair has wheels.

and have a relationship.

What the hell do I want one of those? Short of the sex, there is no benefit to a relationship for me at this point. All it would serve to do is bankrupt me. Pass.

You sound like you have no life at all no offense.

Trust me, nothing you say can offend me. And perhaps I don't want what you consider to be a life? Perhaps my ideal life is much different to yours and doesn't involve those social communications, twisted relationships of backstabbing and pointless sporting activities. I prefer things nice and simple.

Also your a snitch you got my post taken off front page you snitcher.

It was hidden because it was a pointless post that circumvented the swear filter. Regardless of what he did too you, you still calling him a little shit and a douche bag. You'll find the post was hidden because of that.

Tiberath is this is true you don't like sports, why on axerob blog you said when you were in high school you played football huh!?