Joint decision

[robomont]

Right now the deamon is statins.my friend girl had her head fugged up.her bf got her off them but it was almost as bad as beating heroin.
Now the fda wants to rescedule oxy.rush limbals favorite candy.i know personally know folks that use meth as pain relief.bad back.
The term pain management is a joke.i know of nobody that can successfully manage severe pain.any pharma drug may get rid of the pain for a while but it always ends up they run out of meds because it takes more each time.pot is the only drug i know of that isnt that way.but it helps if the patient can switch between varieties of pot so his tolerence is kept low.

[Pimander]

Sinny,

Drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

Any xenobiotic substance is a drug if it has a physiological effect.  That includes plants.  It is a plant as well as a drug.  Most drugs are plants or plant derived.

If you take the same dose forever, some of the effects will lessen over time.  I'm not a fascist.  There's no harm in taking drugs in moderation and if you like it then go ahead.

If you work for the DWP then I'd remove the above as you can be dismissed for misconduct if you are identified by your picture.  Just friendly advice from a fellow Civil Servant which you are free to ignore.  That is one of the reasons why personal data is best kept private on forums.

Back in the50s when we were mining u ore.we had giant piles of leftover dirt.the gov conned the tobacco farmers to take it.as oakridge is in the heart of tobacco country.the gov hustled it to them because it was high in phosphorus.
If i remember the story correctly.

I can believe that.  Not all phosphorus fertilisers are radioactive today.  I think that it can be a beta emitter but only certain isotopes.

Is conning the same as a law?  If there really is a law insisting that tobacco be contaminated with radioactive phosphorus then I I do want to see it.  I'll be contacting lawyers with advice on how to sue the US government in the very near future if that is the case.

The term pain management is a joke.i know of nobody that can successfully manage severe pain.any pharma drug may get rid of the pain for a while but it always ends up they run out of meds because it takes more each time.

Exactly.  This is true of nearly all drugs.

pot is the only drug i know of that isnt that way.but it helps if the patient can switch between varieties of pot so his tolerence is kept low.

If you switch from DHC to THC rich varieties that can work.  you have to know which are which though.

[Sinny]

Did you just ask me to compromise my freedom of speech?

If I was afraid of the law, I wouldn't post ANYTHING.

[Pimander]

Did you just ask me to compromise my freedom of speech?

It isn't the law I'm worried about it is your employer.  I asked because you are free to leave it there if you wish.  As I say, I have represented people who have been disciplined for similar but it's your job.  I was just trying to help.

Are you pretending to have your freedom limited? 

If I was afraid of the law, I wouldn't post ANYTHING.

Your employer is not the law.  The ordinary police are next to useless, I wouldn't worry about them.  A jealous or vindictive colleague is a different matter altogether.  See your PM.

[Sinny]

PM received, and appreciated.

Sorry, I'll just always take the offensive where my morals, ethics, rights, and freedoms are concerned.
I decided quite a awhile back that no one, or anything will compromise those even if it was a personal sacrifice.

I'm an open UKIP supporter admist the biggest EU profitier in the UK.

A bit of front can get you a long way.

[Pimander]

Be careful of political opponents mate.  Knives and backs are never too far apart in politics - I should know.

If you change your mind, I'll edit those posts any time you ask.  It's your call.

[Amaterasu]

The problem is that dependence on a drug for any problem is not a good long term solution.

If you rely on Cannabis to relieve anxiety, for appetite stimulation or whatever, then your body increasingly needs more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects.  The more you develop resistance, the more the symptoms like anxiety increase when you do not take the drug and the problem just gradually gets worse.

While it is true of many drugs, I have NEVER had cannabis show signs of "need[ing] more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects."  Ever.  Where do You get this from?

There is nothing unique about Cannabis in this regard.  This is true of nearly all drugs.

I contest that.  Just sayin'.

[robomont]

Im w amy on above statement.

As far as it being law back in the 50s.it wouldnt surprise me but i dont know of it as law.but i think ive heard that law statement before.maybe a state law that never got enforced much .the usa is fugged when it comes to laws.we have fed laws.state laws.county laws.city laws.jurisdiction laws.and common law.so basically we are all a bunch of criminals that get taxed unevenly due to corruption at all levels.as i pissed off most of the local cops and judges.i get singled out when i go to town.if i have my phone or show my face to a camera.im stalked by law the entire time im in town.but because its a small hick town .i manage.i get at least two cop plane flyovers a year.one in spring and one in fall.thirteen straight years.i almost always wear camo no matter where i go.in town or out in country.i had a state trooper and a county both give me tickets in less then a month.one for no insurance while driving to insurance office and then one for no blinker in the fountry with no one around but a cop in the bushes.i told that one i would charge him and the the trooper and judge with stalking if this continued.the last cop didnt even have a name tag.i now get revenge by means that cant be mentioned.but it actually is comforting seeing my results from afar.those that say revenge isnt fun.havent learned how to do it properly.i still have lots more planned.looooool.

[Amaterasu]

Im w amy on above statement.

As far as it being law back in the 50s.it wouldnt surprise me but i dont know of it as law.but i think ive heard that law statement before.maybe a state law that never got enforced much .the usa is fugged when it comes to laws.we have fed laws.state laws.county laws.city laws.jurisdiction laws.and common law...

About that, long time investment, well worth the watch:

[Anthra]

Drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

Any xenobiotic substance is a drug if it has a physiological effect.  That includes plants.  It is a plant as well as a drug.  Most drugs are plants or plant derived.

The problem is that dependence on a drug for any problem is not a good long term solution.

I have a heart condition that requires me to take a certain substance every day, if I don't I will soon have cardiac problems that could result in death.

I presume that this substance and the reasons don't apply in your view on drugs. By the way, smoking weed helps to control by blood pressure and other factors that contribute to my (any your) cardiac health.

[Pimander]

While it is true of many drugs, I have NEVER had cannabis show signs of "need[ing] more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects."  Ever.  Where do You get this from?

Observing people I know who smoke.

I have a heart condition that requires me to take a certain substance every day, if I don't I will soon have cardiac problems that could result in death.

I presume that this substance and the reasons don't apply in your view on drugs.

My view on drugs is take them if you like them but know the risks and don't be delusional and think that there are not side effects, especially to smoking.  In particular you should use them if they are useful.  I am a pharmacologist (first degree, I do "other things" now) not an idiot or a fascist.  That does not change the fact that you develop drug resistance over time.

By the way, smoking weed helps to control by blood pressure and other factors that contribute to my (any your) cardiac health.

There are better ways to control your blood pressure.  Regular exercise, reducing salt consum[tion, lowering your calorie intake and taking hawthorne berry tincture are all more effective.

I'd suggest smoking weed is more useful if you want to write music than it is useful for reducing hypertension. 


It should be up to the individual whether they smoke weed.  What I object to is pretending that one particular drug is harmless when smoking DOES CAUSE CANCER.


ETA:  So what is this law saying all tobacco has to be grown using radioactive fertiliser?

[deuem]

Hi Pim,

Do you have any stats on the deaths caused by pharmacy drugs every year vs. pot deaths? Pharmacy would need to include all doctor given prescriptions. The direct pot deaths from "Pot Cancer" can not include people who also smoked cigarettes.

I have had at least 3 good friends die from pharmacy drugs, including a very close family member. I have never heard of any one kicking the bucket from pot smoke. Now I don't get out much and I would be the first to say that I am naive on the death rates but it sounds like you might have a handle on it. If so, can you share?

One nice thing here is that most anti-biotics are OTC and cheep to buy. To get a drug like amoxicillin in the US you have to pay a doctor 50 bucks for an office visit then another $25 or more for the pharmacy. Here they cost about 4 bucks for 10 pills.

[Pimander]

Deuem, with respect, I'm not going to waste endless hours on this thread.  Yes, people die from taking pharmaceuticals.  There is a lot wrong with big pharma too.  I was just trying to point out that it is nonsense to say that Cannabis is not harmful if you smoke it.

Anyone found that law yet?

[deuem]

Ok Pim, thanks for responding, I would not even know where to start wuth that research. I imagine smoking anything over a period of time is harmful to some extent. Deuem

[Amaterasu]

Observing people I know who smoke.

Well, I have known MANY MANY Who smoke - and there is NOT any evidence *I* have seen that this is true.  I have noted that there is a point after which additional medication does nothing more, and it is a waste to smoke at that point.  One may presume that is when the receptors are saturated.

Beyond that...  Nope.  Never seen any that have said, "Wow. I only needed 3 tokes, and now I need ten..."  Never ever.

My view on drugs is take them if you like them but know the risks and don't be delusional and think that there are not side effects, especially to smoking.  In particular you should use them if they are useful.  I am a pharmacologist (first degree, I do "other things" now) not an idiot or a fascist.  That does not change the fact that you develop drug resistance over time.
There are better ways to control your blood pressure.  Regular exercise, reducing salt consum[tion, lowering your calorie intake and taking hawthorne berry tincture are all more effective.

I'd suggest smoking weed is more useful if you want to write music than it is useful for reducing hypertension. 


It should be up to the individual whether they smoke weed.  What I object to is pretending that one particular drug is harmless when smoking DOES CAUSE CANCER.


ETA:  So what is this law saying all tobacco has to be grown using radioactive fertiliser?

Still looking for a "law" - will admit I had heard that but failed to track it down.  Mea culpa.

From:  http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.2012-07-15

Radioactive tobacco
by David Malmo-Levine (02 Jan, 2002)

It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!

Cannabis is often compared to tobacco, with the damage caused by smoking tobacco given as a reason to prohibit use of cannabis. Yet most of the harms caused by tobacco use are due not to tar, but to the use of radioactive fertilizers. Surprisingly, radiation seems to be the most dangerous and important factor behind tobacco lung damage.

Radioactive fertilizer

It's a well established but little known fact that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radiation. The major source of this radiation is phosphate fertilizer.1 The big tobacco companies all use chemical phosphate fertilizer, which is high in radioactive metals, year after year on the same soil. These metals build up in the soil, attach themselves to the resinous tobacco leaf and ride tobacco trichomes in tobacco smoke, gathering in small "hot spots" in the small-air passageways of the lungs.2 Tobacco is especially effective at absorbing radioactive elements from phosphate fertilizers, and also from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water.3

To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).4

Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year.5 The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University reports that the radiation level for the same smoker was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year.6 Another report argues that a typical nicotine user might be getting the equivalent of almost 22,000 chest X-rays per year.7

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.10 The most potent non-radioactive chemical, benzopyrene, exists in cigarettes in amounts sufficient to account for only 1% of the cancer found in smokers.9

Smoke screen

Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of lung cancer.1

Tobacco smoking has been popular for centuries,11 but lung cancer rates have only increased significantly after the 1930's.12 In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.14

Publicly available internal memos of tobacco giant Philip Morris indicate that the tobacco corporation was well aware of radiation contamination in 1974, and that they had means to remove polonium from tobacco in 1980, by using ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead of calcium phosphate. One memo describes switching to ammonium phosphate as a "valid but expensive point."15

Attorney Amos Hausner, son of the prosecutor who sent Nazi Adolf Eichmann to the gallows, is using these memos as evidence to fight the biggest lawsuit in Israel's history, to make one Israeli and six US tobacco companies pay up to $8 billion for allegedly poisoning Israelis with radioactive cigarettes.16

Organic solutions

The radioactive elements in phosphate fertilizers also make their way into our food and drink. Many food products, especially nuts, fruits, and leafy plants like tobacco absorb radioactive elements from the soil, and concentrate them within themselves.17

The fluorosilicic acid used to make the "fluoridated water" most of us get from our taps is made from various fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers during the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. This fluoride solution put into our water for "strong teeth" also contains radioactive elements from the phosphate extraction.18

Although eating and drinking radioactive products is not beneficial, the most harmful and direct way to consume these elements is through smoking them.19

The unnecessary radiation delivered from soil-damaging, synthetic chemical fertilizers can easily be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate sources including organic fertilizers.20 In one test, an organic fertilizer appeared to emit less alpha radiation than a chemical fertilizer.21 More tests are needed to confirm this vital bit of harm-reduction information.

Organic fertilizers such as organic vegetable compost, animal manure, wood ash and seaweed have proven to be sustainable and non-harmful to microbes, worms, farmers and eaters or smokers. Chemical phosphates may seem like a bargain compared to natural phosphorous, until you factor in the health and environmental costs.

Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun.

References

1. Winters, TH and Franza, JR. 'Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 306(6): 364-365, web
2. Edward A Martell, PhD. 'Letter to the Editor,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 307(5): 309-313, web
3. Ponte, Lowell. 'Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes,' Reader's Digest, March 1986. pp. 123-127.
4. Kilthau, GF. 'Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco,' Radiologic Technology, Vol 67, January 11, 1996, web
5. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Website, 2001, web
6. Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Utah State University. 'Cigarettes are a Major Source of Radiation Exposure,' Safety Line, Issue 33, Fall 1996, web
7. Nursing & Allied Healthweek, 1996,
8. Herer, Jack. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 11th edition, 1998. p. 110, web
9. Litwak, Mark. 'Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?' Whole Life Times, April/May, 1985. pp 11, web
10. Yuille, CL; Berke, HL; Hull, T. 'Lung cancer following Pb210 inhalation in rats.' Radiation Res, 1967. 31:760-774.
11. Borio, Gene. Tobacco Timeline. Website, 2001, web
12. Taylor, Peter. The Smoke Ring. Pantheon Books, NY, 1984. pp. 2-3, web
13. Smith, Lendon, MD. 'There Ought to Be a Law,' Chiroweb.com, November 20, 1992, web
14. Marmorstein, J. 'Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?' South Medical Journal, February 1986. 79(2):145-50, web
15. Phillip Morris internal memo, April 2 1980. Available online at www.pmdocs.com, web
16. Goldin, Megan. "'Radioactive' cigarettes cited in Israeli lawsuit." Reuters, June 23, 2000.
17. Health Physics Society, 'Naturally occuring radioactive materials factsheet,' 1997. see also: Watters, RL. Hansen, WR. 'The hazards implication of the transfer of unsupported 210 Po from alkaline soil to plants,' Health Physics Journal, April 1970. 18(4):409-13, web and web
18. Glasser, George. 'Fluoride and the phosphate connection.' Earth Island Journal, earthisland.org, web
19. Watson, AP. 'Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose.' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.
20. Burnett, William; Schultz, Michael; Hull, Carter. 'Behavior of Radionuclides During Ammonocarbonation of Phosphogypsum.' Florida State University, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. March, 1995, web
21. Hornby, Paul, Dr. Personal communication, 2001.