Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


bongme

Doctor Warns Brothers That The Use Of Marijuana Is Negatively Affecting Their Brains

958 posts in this topic

@The Pharm what reasons/effects do you think people use it for recreationally?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nervous said:

 


Ah, sorry fellas. Either comment might actually have been funny if I was a doctor. Much like the rest of this conversation it's a case of people not knowing the facts and using humour (or attempting to in your cases) to mask that... fact  :fish:

 

We're a varied bunch ;) There's a kinda chaotic power to that, I think...hope :D

Edited by j.o.i.n.t
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Bustin Jieber said:

@The Pharm what reasons/effects do you think people use it for recreationally?


To wrap themselves up in cotton wool i think the doc said earlier. :wallbash:
What the doc fails to understand is that recreational use and cannabis does not exist in the way he portrays.
All use is ultimately medicinal in my opinion.

 

Quote

If you feel the need to wrap yourself up in cotton wool by all means you can, however you are comparing apples to oranges. Cannabis is harmful if consumed in excess, or during pregnancy. Cannabis can induce psychosis and trigger early onset depression. Its psychologically damaging for adolescents as it inhibits brain development. It is only a vital component in people's lives when they're dependant, cannabis is not essential to life. Butter no parsnips

 

 
 
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, twigs said:

it’s has loads dude :stoned: (unless i misunderstand what your saying, in which case i’m sorry)

 Good on you for picking up on the points and strengthening the position, fully correct in your additions. it was about ten years ago i started getting organic hemp seed oil, and shelled or hulled seeds from the Health Food shop.

  It's going to be fun converting Big Pharma to a positive healthy cannabis based lifestyle. Sometimes I'll go along with a posters characterisations especially when termed as a Professional opinion from orthodoxy however it seems  appropriate to inform Pharma that his science is not :doh:always correct and will be peer reviewed around here from now on :yes:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

@schmoak peer reviewing has to be done by qualified people in the same field sorry mate. 

 

It's there so that people who have proven their knowledge is accurate can be held accountable if they back something that is essentially BS. This is done by people who will be pro and against any given study, not just to help people agree with each other

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, catfish said:

or the plant did all it could with  colour , smell and taste to attract us ? 

 

        lol   Ma'am gets to have gardeners, butlers and slaves to keep her warm and well fed. Gorgeous mothers are highly prized  enjoying high status and a long life.

Edited by schmoak
gwammar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

@Nervous Howdy:cowboy:. What I lack in academic certification is of trivial consequence, experience and knowledge spread over time make for an equal and superior quality judgement.

 Already we see how stated assertions on this thread have been rubbished to the discredit of the scientist who made the erroneous claims.

So, if not to be Peer Reviewed let's find another term that fits . . .  ah, got it!  How about  Double Checked! or em. . . Sussed Out? :yep:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nervous said:

It's there so that people who have proven their knowledge is accurate can be held accountable if they back something that is essentially BS. This is done by people who will be pro and against any given study, not just to help people agree with each other


The hierarchy within the ranks of medics places those at the top as near demi-gods.

Anything they say is taken as RATFACT.

Our resident grower of poison @The Pharm heard someone notable during a seminar say something that can only be backed up so far by a Daily Mail report. Yet we are expected to believe it just because a qualified doctor is lapping up the falsities from their peers.

Prof such and such said it, so it must be true.

Yeah right. lol 

Ask Prof Nutt about Skunk cannabis for example. If alarm bells fail to ring in your head at that point then you are a mug.

The fear of cannabis is agenda driven by medics who should know better. These notable peer folk are funded by who?

Tell a lie so many times and it will eventually become the truth.

What is the difference between a lecturing medic and a religious preacher? Not that much imo. Not much.

Edited by bartman
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Cannabis is bad for you but I'll happily prescribe you some branded opioids, benzos, amphetamines, and SSRIs. :russian: 

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

One the first written about imposition of prohibition was I believe when Napoleon was conquering Turkey. He forbade his troops to smoke the hashish. He reckoned it would take the fight out of his troops belly. Dastardly drug :D

Edited by Flamedodger
Been at the Ganga Gin
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

@schmoak @bartman I appreciate what you're saying but peer reviewing is important and it's important that it's done by qualified people. 

Yes, you can learn just as much by reading journals, studies, books and some things observationally but throughout that process you have had nobody to answer your questions, check that you're interpreting things correctly or give you context and the benefit of their experience in the field. You have not been tested to see that you have understood and remembered the data correctly or to see that you understand the practical methods that are required to understand certain things.

Basically if you're going to look for information on say, doses for medication (that if applied may cure or kill someone), would you rather get the info from someone who has qualifications (proof) that they are qualified... or someone who just tells you that they have done the relevant reading? Or would you rather you had a qualified surgeon digging around in your guts for an operation... or the chap who says "know what I'm doing chaps, chill :v:". 

Plus, as I said before. Peer reviewing is often unbaised. Most journals are exactly that, no affiliations to big opioid producers etc (and you're taught to spot the ones that are and avoid even referencing them). You're also taught how to spot general bullshit in the first year of uni - I did a post on some of the relevant stuff so you can spot studies/journals that have a conflict of interest etc.
I think if you are totally honest even you can admit that you and most other people on this site are definitely not unbiased. To review and confirm articles yourselves... you need to be unbiased...or at least have the tolerance to deal with people who disagree with you so that both sides of the argument are heard and logical, reasonable conclusions can be drawn using both. 

So much paranoia and distrust of all the emergency services here on this site lol who are you going to call when you're in the shit (ghostbusters)?  it's a bit shocking really, a pattern is emerging. These people aren't out to get you, I appreciate some bigger companies might be aware of the damage they do but doctors etc are individuals with varying morals just like the rest of us. There isn't some big conspiracy between all doctors that drives the will of big pharma if for no other reason than they are competitive and often don't agree (but you don't see them doing what you lot are doing). They are individuals and many disagree with aspects of the current system, just like you. 

Seems to be a lot of painting groups of people with the same colour around here. I don't think you lot appreicate it (I know I don't) when the media paint all of us with the same colour as other people who are involved with cannabis that commit violent crimes, enforce modern day slavery etc. There probably are or have been some people on this site that grow for monetary gain and have hurt people but you're not all the same now, are you? Generally speaking we're a nice bunch of people.  

Food for thought.  
   

 
 

Edited by Nervous
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

@Nervous i know your a science head and i do have a lot of respect for medical professionals, but........ just because somebody has a head full of knowledge and the certificates to prove it doesnt always mean they are right. Research of medical cannabis in the uk is seriously shit, america for example a few years ago found that cannabis can be really helpfull (medicaly) for IBD (chrones and ulcerative collitis) now when my wife who has had UC in the past has mentioned that to our GP he sniggered as if to say another one fuckin hell, but we have found that my wife is in remission since she started taking cannabis again after 5 years off (when the UC started) 

Now i like our GP and trust him with our families health BUT he cant take these claims seriously because there is no scientific evidence to prove that cannabis helps IBD sufferers.

My point is and probably the same as others is if a GP registrar like @The Pharm comes here and says things like "cannabis has a limited medicanal value" and "people should get hobbies to make them happy instead of recreational cannabis use" oh and lets not forget confusing the damage caused by cannabis use and smoking then hes going to get a bit of flack !

Just because cannabis has been poorly researched by the medical community because it always been treated as a dangerous drug and not a potential medicine now that big pharma is involved the research is starting and in 10 years time we will notice a massive change.

I think you have said in the past your a nutritionist ? You hang around here so im presuming you enjoy getting smashed, dont get your knickers in a twist because everybody isnt agreeing with the self proclaimed PhD registrar doctor gp dude who is sticking to the NHS line that that cannabis has very little medicinal use...... lots of people think it does and a lot more research needs doing !

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, LA LUNA said:

GP he sniggered as if to say another one fuckin hell,


Just a snigger. Wow your wife is in the fortunate few club.:wassnnme:

They phoned the police to arrest me more than once for challenging their narrative.

 

Respect them. How can I? I cant even begin to forgive them ffs. Cunts.

Here we have @The Pharm spouting the same bollocks as I heard for far too long.

Lies damn lies but it fits their narrative so why should they question their peers. And so it goes on and on and on.

Edited by bartman
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, LA LUNA said:

just because somebody has a head full of knowledge and the certificates to prove it doesnt always mean they are right


I agree, it's not certainty. But it means they're infinitely more likely to be right. If you ask 10 random people and 10 doctors about something regarding medicine, your chances are better with the docs. 

Even me and Pharm disgaree on certain elements of his perspective but I had a nice conversation with him and a few others via message during the mayhem last night, just sharing our views in a more civilised manner. It's a shame the rest can't do the same! 

I also agree that cannabis has been poorly researched, but that's true on both sides of the argument. Take (and I'm going to get shit all over for saying this which illustrates my point) Jeff Ditchfield for example, many of his videos promote cannabis as a cure for cancer/send it into remission. In a video I watched, he stated it can do that and a little about apoptosis but nothing else, it was brief. Cancer is a genetically diverse issue with many causes which all require a different approach and while cannabis may or may not help one type or another, it's certainly very dangerous to say that it cures it generally because people have and will reject tried and tested techniques in favour of cannabis. 

Equally, there are certain companies which pay for research to vilify cannabis to hurt the industry, keep it illegal etc. 

Indeed I am a nutritionist (MSc, BSc Hons, RNutr) but I can't claim that I always remain calm lol sometimes the old knickers do get in a twist, but not often (I'm not the Dalai Lama).   

Edited by Nervous
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Nervous said:

Indeed I am a nutritionist

 

Cool. *mental note*. Might need the mind of one of them one day. :)

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.