Beasley and the ganja

[denial]

Your case is the exception that PROVES the rule, not debunks it.

My case is irrelevant at this point. The hundreds of (double-blind, controlled) test subjects are more valid.

[denial]

And also the treatment of smoking cessation with MIXED RESULTS.... aka, that means IT DOESN'T WORK

1) I think they're talking about tobacco
2) doesn't "mixed" prove that it works for some people?

[denial]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun01/marijuana.aspx

"We know that a small but significant percentage of people who ever try marijuana become dependent and may need treatment," says clinical psychologist Robert S. Stephens, PhD, of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. "Yet there have been very few randomized, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment approaches--but that's finally beginning to change."


Is it possible, that what you guys are arguing is correct for 90% of people and what I am arguing is correct for 10% of people?

http://psychiatry.jwatch.org/cgi/conten ... 2012/702/1

If I am 100% honest, this debate has caused me to google around a little bit. and I do find it curious that all of the gabepentin/cannabis related research seems to go back to the same places and related to pro-weed groups. So, maybe it is a big $ deal for some people purely and maybe it is funded by pharmaceuticals (who, by the way, i believe are the scourge of the earth in terms of greed and corruption so dont get me wrong).
None-the-less, I know what my experience was and it was consistent with those who had success in the studies. So, whatever the motive, I think there is still due cause to take my position seriously.

btw: I just smoked a blunt with Easy Beez. He dont wanna hear nothin about no gabanothin.

[denial]

I haven't read any research that proves a chemical addictive qualities.

Have you read research that proves the contrary?
You wouldn't see drug wars occurring and prisons being built over it for nothing.

There is no research either way. It is just basically some opinion that got thrown out there and stuck for some reason. You seem extremely sure of your opinion and unwilling to even consider the opposite. I wonder why.

I have cited several articles and studies in this thread.

I also don't understand (and it kind of erks me a bit tbh) how you keep saying all these facts about ME PERSONALLY? I CLEARLY wasn't addicted to this or that but CLEARLY was addicted to this? Wow. So why did I smoke cigarettes every day for 7 years... what was that all about? Was that mental or physical? How did I not get physically addicted? How do you have the right to even speak on it?

[RunDogGun]

Who is claiming "facts" about you? I have no idea why you smoked for seven years, nor do I know how many times you smoked a day, but from what you said, it seemed clear that both drinking and smoking wasn't hard for you to kick. Yet you needed another drug to help you kick weed. I was just going off the information you provided about yourself. Are you implying that drinking and smoking don't have chemical dependent qualities?

Again, people can be addicted to anything. All I'm saying is from personal experience with friends who smoked weed, I don't know any that had trouble kicking it. Some did it for work, some for their kids, some quit for two years, and then sometimes smoke here and there, but nowhere near the amount they smoked before. Sure I have friends that don't want to kick it, but that doesn't prove anything. I know people that always drive over the speed limit, that doesn't prove they are chemically dependent on driving fast.

As far as the drug wars and prisons being built, that has so much more to do with money than any chemical dependency.

Two doctors is not a good sample, and the Earth thought of as flat, was an ignorant comment. All you did was insert your opinion on what these two doctors have come up with. So one doctor got a US grant, so what? That doesn't make everything she said a fact. Like others have mentioned, doctors can get kickbacks from drug companies.

I don't have anything against you. If you feel that what these two doctors say is gospel, than so be it. But that doesn't make me ignorant, or someone dumb enough to believe the world is flat.

I just want Beasley to quit smoking before games, and play basketball like we thought he could.

[denial]

Who is claiming "facts" about you? I have no idea why you smoked for seven years, nor do I know how many times you smoked a day, but from what you said, it seemed clear that both drinking and smoking wasn't hard for you to kick. Yet you needed another drug to help you kick weed. I was just going off the information you provided about yourself. Are you implying that drinking and smoking don't have chemical dependent qualities?

Again, people can be addicted to anything. All I'm saying is from personal experience with friends who smoked weed, I don't know any that had trouble kicking it. Some did it for work, some for their kids, some quit for two years, and then sometimes smoke here and there, but nowhere near the amount they smoked before. Sure I have friends that don't want to kick it, but that doesn't prove anything. I know people that always drive over the speed limit, that doesn't prove they are chemically dependent on driving fast.

As far as the drug wars and prisons being built, that has so much more to do with money than any chemical dependency.

Two doctors is not a good sample, and the Earth thought of as flat, was an ignorant comment. All you did was insert your opinion on what these two doctors have come up with. So one doctor got a US grant, so what? That doesn't make everything she said a fact. Like others have mentioned, doctors can get kickbacks from drug companies.

I don't have anything against you. If you feel that what these two doctors say is gospel, than so be it. But that doesn't make me ignorant, or someone dumb enough to believe the world is flat.

I just want Beasley to quit smoking before games, and play basketball like we thought he could.

I have now listed three doctors (2 md's [1 researcher, 1 practicing physician], 1 phd).
And I could go on and on.

I have also listed two studies.
And I could continue.

You guys have stated zero facts with zero substantiation.

I am not taking what they say as gospel. I am trying to have an honest discussion. You are the ones who are 100% unwilling to even consider what I am saying.

Maybe Beasly is one of those ten percent who can become dependent (as noted by one of the phd's I listed)? If so, maybe he could benefit from people who think like me. People who would take his problem seriously and get him help, whether is be Neurontin or some other method that you are more fond of.

You are all just completely discounting what I am saying without even considering it. Maybe I haven't shown mountains of evidence. But I have certainly shown enough credible scientific data for any reasonable, intelligent person to at least consider.

[denial]

Two doctors is not a good sample, and the Earth thought of as flat, was an ignorant comment. All you did was insert your opinion on what these two doctors have come up with. So one doctor got a US grant, so what? That doesn't make everything she said a fact. Like others have mentioned, doctors can get kickbacks from drug companies.

I am not speaking about their opinions. I am speaking about their double-blind controlled studies. When a study is done properly, double-blind, and properly controlled, it is as close to fact as anything this world has to offer. Certainly much more so than your baseless opinions without any scientific backup.


When I use the word "ignorant" I don't use it in the common ghetto (terribly inaccurate) sense of the word.
I mean it by definition.
Ignorant means you lack knowledge about something. I have made absolutely zero ignorant statements in this thread. You two on the other hand, are spewing with ignorance.

[denial]

Who is claiming "facts" about you?

ummm...

clearly you weren't addicted to either of those, nor had a mental attachment to them.

[denial]

Again, people can be addicted to anything.

As far as the drug wars and prisons being built, that has so much more to do with money than any chemical dependency.

I agree, it is ALL about money. But what makes it profitable? You think they could do the same thing with pine cones? If pine cones were illegal would there be hundreds of thousands of people in jail for pine cone trafficking?

You know why there aren't thousands of arrests everyday for Ageratina adenophora smugglers? Because Ageratina adenophora isn't addictive. Sure, some idiots could get mentally addicted to Ageratina adenophora. But that doesn't make it the #1 illegally traded product in the United States. Have you ever heard of Ageratina adenophora? It's illegal. What about Lygodium flexuosum? Or Moraea collina? All illegal. All non-addictive unabused and uncommon.

[denial]

There is no help for people like you because you are the only one in the world who can't kick weed. Was the weed you were smoking laced with heroin or something?

Keep laughing at me while I have a real problem. Thanks.

I am speaking for myself... I said that. It's not my fault that my experience completely discredits yours.

No it doesn't. Why can't two people have two differing, both valid, experiences? Maybe you don't get addicted to it and I do?

You mad?

A bit upset that something so paramount in my life is laughed at by others, yes.

Think about it, you were substituting one drug for another, and there isn't enough research done on gabapentin to justify the risk in taking it. Think about what you are/were doing. It's actually pretty dangerous in my opinion.

I was a desperate addict

I still smoke, but only out of personal preference. If I needed to quit tomorrow I could. I treat weed now like other people do with say wine... 1 glass of wine before bed is actually good for you. I take a couple of tokes after work and that's about it.

Good for you. I on the other hand waste like $1000/month on weed and smoke everyday and have to hide it from my children and family. It sure feels like an addiction. But keep laughing at everything I say. Weed is no problem for you, so obviously there is no way it could be a problem for anyone else.

[RunDogGun]

Who is claiming "facts" about you?

ummm...

clearly you weren't addicted to either of those, nor had a mental attachment to them.

How is that embellishing facts about you? You bragged about kicking two proven chemically dependent drugs. It would be logical to infer that you weren't addicted to them, nor had a mental attachment to them. I'm still just going off information you posted. I'm guessing you should be mad at yourself, not me for this one.

As far as the "opinions" I was talking about, it seemed pretty clear that I was referring to your opinion about us being "ignorant" to these new findings of these doctors. You were the one that brought up the old beliefs about flat Earth and blood. Maybe you are ignorant to how that came off. I know what ignorant means, I brought up it's meaning last year. I love using it, because many misunderstand it's meaning.

Oh well, you still haven't changed my mind about the subject. My first hand account on this trumps anything you have brought forth. But if you want, you can continue to go off, if it makes you happy.

$1000 a month? Holy heck dude! You have a major problem, and for that, I feel bad. Hiding it from family and friends suck as well. I would hate to have to lie to the people I love, while draining $12k a year from my family's budget. You could be using that money to save for college for your kids. But maybe that is what you are really mad about (my opinion, not a "fact").