Forum Post: Cannabis was America’s number one painkiller
Posted 10 years ago on June 28, 2013, 7:13 p.m. EST by Kavatz
(464)
from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110123211552AASgra5
History:
-Marijuana has been used for over 5,000 years. -No one has ever overdosed on marijuana. -Aspirin has been used for 108 years. -Approximately 500 people die every year by taking aspirin
"So if safety is your concern, cannabis is clearly a much better choice than aspirin. If you eat it or vaporize it, it just might be the safest painkiller the world has ever known."
That was a nice chat. Now to close the loop, http://occupywallst.org/forum/found-dg-with-me/#comment-983193
It would be interesting to see what the people of the world will democratically decide, after the transformula has run its course.
opium and marijuana have long been cultivated for their medicinal and recreational value. the only reason they are illegal is cause big business and uncle sam have cornered the pharmaceutical and black market.
They can ship guns and drugs all over the planet.
pretty much. that is how they get rich bitch.
Cannabis won't give you ( or irritate ) bleeding ulcers either.
As if Americans weren't stupid and complacent enough! Now you want to legalize dope?
Legalize everything
legalize all drugs.
No good reason not to and plenty of good reasons to legalize.
Stupid Americans have nothing to do with weed. They are unrelated, the causes.
Yea, but they won't arrest you for taking aspirin; and people aren't getting killed in Mexico trying to supply an illegal demand. Marijuana has ruined millions of lives. That's the difference.
stop calling yourself a liberal please. you are not a liberal. you are a brainwashed imp.
I suspect I'm more liberal than you. I'm just not as radical you seem to be.
There isn't an honest liberal on the Planet, that's going to brag up Perry like you do, so I doubt your statement very much.
As I've said many times here. I hate Perry. He's one of the most arrogant people on the planet. Happy now?
You're just happy with his policies then???
He IS his policies. That makes your statement about being liberal a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
Some of his policies work very well. Doesn't mean I think he's doing a good job overall. Good enough for you?
Nope.
Not at all.
Is it his staunch anti union policies?
His staunch anti women's liberty policies?
His anti voter policies?
His anti pollution regulation policies?
His anti Hispanic policies?
His low wages for as many as possible policies?
His unification of church and state policies?
That's just few, I'm sure YOU would know even more of them rather intimately.
Speak up.
And don't forget he has maintained a strong economy, kept taxes low, kept Texas pretty much out of the recession.
I don't like Perry, but I give credit where credit is due. He has kept Texas running when other states are going bankrupt. I bet Detroit wishes he come help them out right now.
I'm asking you to give the credit.
Which of these policies did the trick?
Which ones do you support?
[Removed]
No, marijuana prohibition has ruined millions of lives. That's the difference.
And no "honestly" defensible reason for the prohibition on marijuana either.
Absolutely not when you consider how and why it was prohibited in the first place. I can remember reading about Anslinger's 'crusade' when I was in high school and how it was claimed that weed turned blacks into homicidal maniacs that were out raping white girls. In the '20's it was mostly blacks that smoked here in the US, so of course they became the 'poster child' for prohibition.
I remember reading the supposed bio of Alvin "Creepy" Karpis (of 'Ma' Barker fame) and his memories of buying a tobacco tin full of weed for 'two bits' back in the thirties. My how times have changed.
REEFER MADNESS - AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHieeee
Damn - one of the healthiest and most versatile plants and it is outlawed - How F'n Insane.
That movie's hilarious. Ever seen it? I imagine you have. I have the VHS laying around here somewhere.
And yes it is insane. Fuck William Randolph Hearst.
I laughed my ass off the 1st time I saw it - then I had to get high and watch it again - ROTFLMAO bout peed my pants too.
Saw it in my psychology class - the teacher was cool.
You saw it in school? That's funny in it's own right. But I'm thinking if your teacher was cool, then it wasn't shown as some sort of anti-drug propaganda.
Exactly - He thought it quite funny too - but showed it as an infant step of government propaganda ( psychological warfare ) to manipulate the public's perspective - an early use of psychology by the government on it's population.
I like the sounds of that teacher. Had to be in the '70's, eh? And I definitely like the context in which he was showing it. Sort of like the "black reefer-heads raping white women" propaganda. There were actually false news reports of those alleged crimes inserted into newspapers (Hearst again?) back in the thirties.
Yep - the 70's and we had quite a good section on how stereotypes were formulated and used - by government as well as by various social groups - examining the civil rights movement for one - the Vietnam war for another but also going back into pre WWII era as well. OH not to forget the masters of propaganda = marketers.
It seems there was a brief period back in the early to mid-70's that had some younger, more progressive teachers show up. I had a couple myself, but I went to an 'alternative' high school. Maybe not so much in 'regular' school, I'm not sure.
You're right 'g'! I had the coolest teacher once. Mr. Morrison...he was a drummer and wore an earring...and taught "Man & His Environment". In Grade 6!! It was more conversational than teaching. Great teacher.
" . . . why were you in this 'alternative' high school?
I just finished checking out your link from Salem Press and it sounds like what they refer to as "open education" is exactly what this was. But for the life of me, I can't remember if there were any special requirements to go. I think it was simply a choice, not based on I.Q. or location or anything. There might have been some requirements, possibly grades. We got a weekly bus pass because there was a lot of bus riding. Public transportation, not yellow school buses.
And what's funny is 'regular' high schools tried to discourage students from enrolling there by telling us we wouldn't have summer vacation at all. That we'd have to go to school twelve months of the year. That was funny.
I did go to a school for the gifted from fifth thru eighth grades, though. 140 I.Q. back then, although for some reason they didn't want parents to tell their kids. I talked my mom into telling me somehow. I wonder how far it's fallen since then, what with all the drugs, alcohol and head blows since then, heheh.
One of my best friends had, I think, 172 I.Q. and he got pretty cocky when he found out. Maybe that's why they didn't want kids to know.
140, you say. Oh my...that's, like all intelligent and stuff. Oh, Renneye...just behave.
Sounds to me like you were involved in some type of outward social/educational experiment. Benign enough at the time, I'm sure. Quite lucky, though.
Are you paranoid at all, 'g'? Maybe, you're in a database somewhere! Of course, these days, apparently we all are, lol!
Imagine if everyone had the same opportunity to excel, though. I think humanity would look a lot different than it does today.
The drug has proven to be useful for treating trauma of the brain and mind. That's why I'm a fan.
"What is 'alternative' high school?"
There were a few things that differed from traditional high schools at the time. For one, instead of having one break at Christmas, we had a week break after every quarter. We had to go a bit longer at the end of the school year, but it was nice to have those breaks during the year so it was worth it. And you had a lot of flexibility in what classes you took. There were times when I'd only have half a day of school, sometimes no school on certain days. That backfired though, because I wound up not having enough credits to graduate on time. But I got lucky in that respect because by the time I made it to 12th grade, it was a different state and a different system (3 years of high school instead of four, so my 9th grade credits were counted) so I was still able to graduate on time. And they had a lot of classes that regular schools didn't have, like psychology, anthropology and film making.
And instead of all your classes being in one big building, a lot of the classes were spread out to other locations. Some classes would be at a local college, or the library. And they still had a Phys-Ed requirement at the time and you could take bowling and the class would be at a bowling alley. Needless to say, I fit in there a lot better than the 'traditional' high school.
"psychology, anthropology and film making"
Wow...sounds rather interesting, for high school. Very textured. What kids should have, in order to keep education interesting. Not like today...poor kids.
This is the first I've heard of this being offered in the US. If you don't mind my prying...why were you in this 'alternative' high school? Experimental? Location? Higher education offered due to giftedness? Sounds similar to the environment that my son is in, and he's in the 99th percentile in intellect.
Sounds like a bit of advanced curriculum - Hey? 6th grade huh.
"Imagine if everyone had the same opportunity to excel, though. I think humanity would look a lot different than it does today."
That is so true. And what passes for school today is abysmal, which is why I'm becoming a big fan of home-schooling. If I had my way, schooling would be radically different. For instance, in the early years, I'd have a lot more outside time. Get them kids out in the sunshine to teach them instead of confining them to a desk all day. A lot of kids go stir crazy being forced to sit there for long periods of time.
I think I was lucky in school. The gifted grade school and the 'open' high school. I had to go to night school to eventually get my diploma though, but it was okay. I scored third-highest in the state of Nebraska that year. But we are talking about Nebraska, so . . .(no offense, Trevor, wherever you are, heheh)
I agree with you, I enjoyed the '70's. It was my second favorite decade. And no, I'm not really paranoid. Anymore. ~.^
And yes, we're all on a list somewhere. Some of us multiple lists probably. But 'they' know I'm no threat to the state. At least not until I get that diagnosis of a terminal disease. Then watch out Gates, I'm comin' for ya! heheh
No, really.
Wow, in sixth grade. I wonder how Canada's schools compared to American schools back in the seventies. Got any ideas?
What is 'alternative' high school?
But you're right, 'g'. Looks like the mid seventies is exactly when that happened in the US. There was much in the way of activism with civil rights during a socially contentious time, and desegregation was a focal point politically for the schools. But 'Open Education' hit its apex in '75. It seems to me, that's when social indoctrination (control) started to take effect by groups that had no business being in education.
http://salempress.com/store/samples/seventies_in_america/seventies_in_america_education_in_the_united_states.htm
Canada had a similar feel regarding the radicalization of young teachers and students with the anti-Vietnam sentiment and there was a call for higher education with respect to Canada needing to fill better jobs, which seemed to end around '79 - '80. Like the US, it went downhill from there.
For me personally, the 70's were great. Just lucky age wise is all.
Many of the peace generation went into teaching. The peace generation was quite involved with college activities going to school as well as demonstrating.
Yeah, quite a contrast between the teachers of the sixties (all old women, it seemed) and those of the seventies. Lots of young, new blood came on the scene by high school. Some of those teachers were actually HOT!
Speaking of the 70's - turn turn turn - very popular then.
Came out in like 67 but was really popular during the later war protests of the early 70's.
No Shit - quite the distraction for us hormone hopped up guys.
I think the general make-up of the 60's teachers was effected quite a bit by the Vietnam War - lots of young men gone off to war. I had a couple of cute young women teachers in grade school.
Point made. However, if the thousands of people in prison, jail or probation for the sale and possession of marijuana had just said "no", their future wouldn't be in jeopardy. For me a joint isn't worth the risk.
That's understandable. But if the thousands of people who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol would have just said "no" think of all the damage those two legal drugs wouldn't have caused. Legality, in my opinion, is moot. Consider what would have happened, or wouldn't have happened I mean, had alcohol not been prohibited back in 1919. That prohibition is directly responsible for the rise of organized crime.
Exactly - and many deaths during the prohibition.
Yep. Death, blindness from 'bathtub gin,' etc. And just like weed today, there was no problem getting alcohol back then if you really wanted some. No problem at all.
Blind from bootleg alcohol - hmmmm - modern day fake ( methanol ) Vodka? http://occupywallst.org/forum/counterfeit-food-be-aware/
Synchronicity, my friend? Yes, I saw that on Nevada's post. What a fucking world, eh? It seems you can't trust anything nowadays. Not if there's a buck to be made.
Funny thing ( synchronicity?? ) the modern is also crime syndicate. Greedy Bastards - willing to kill and mame to make a buck - sad thing is - it is not just the illegal assholes either.
Yeah, it does seem that history is repeating itself in a way, as far as prohibition is concerned. The biggest difference, I think, is back then they mainly did "only kill each other (Bugsy Siegel)." Seems there's a lot more collateral damage nowadays. More cold-blooded, I think.
And a lot of organized crime has come out of the collapse of the iron curtain as well as the decline and collapse of the U.S.S.R. Those criminals come from a very harsh do and die background. Government is more cold blooded as well.
"It is one thing that is played up about Russia - propaganda of how horrible it is there."
Probably didn't want a lot of immigration, especially after the fall. Boatloads of money to be made and why slice the pie too many ways?
Yep considering they can't put their current population to work prosperously - hmmmm - now where else have I heard something like that.
Yeah, that does sound familiar, heheh. I guess it's too late to start a propaganda campaign aimed at lessening the immigration problem, eh?
Hmmm - maybe we needed the cold war - when that was in full swing - well workers were paid a living wage - schools actually educated to promote critical thinking....and to think it was to prove that this system was better then that system....well the honeymoon is over now no government really cares what is thought about them - yeah - they still mouth the sayings - but there is no feeling - no belief anymore - just give me your money - what do I want it for? well so you do not have it of course...........................WTF?......................most everywhere looks pretty familiar today - just plain lousy..............
"Hmmm - maybe we needed the cold war - when that was in full swing - well workers were paid a living wage - schools actually educated to promote critical thinking....and to think it was to prove that this system was better then that system . . ."
Interesting theory. Makes a lot of sense to me. Who'd have thought the 'cold war' was good for something after all? Competition is beneficial.
I've always understood that competition was good for business. Hmmm
I heard that, too. What the hell happened? Seems like everything's turning into monopolies again. Where's Teddy and his big stick when you need him?
Well Hell now a days one would be competing with ones self - and as business sees it - being overpaid here. Greedy bastards.
Oh yeah, those Russians are some bad mother's, aren't they? Another example of giving credit where it's due. They don't fuck around. Considering the environment, it's easy to understand. Growing up in sub-zero weather is bound to harden you somewhat, I imagine.
Well they have some bad areas - weather wise - "siberia" in the winter time but actually they have much the same weather as the northern united states and Canada. Granted they have more land area along the arctic circle - much like Canada - but even for them that is far north.
I just checked it out on Wikipedia. It does seem like they have a lot of diverse climates depending on what part of the country we're talking about, some not too bad at all. Interesting. I assumed all of Russia had severe winters. Not so.
It is one thing that is played up about Russia - propaganda of how horrible it is there. Granted there is plenty that is bad - but - well - some things have been purposely blown out of proportion - but it is no lie that the labor camps in Siberia could be hell-holes.
It gets cold in Edmonton but in the winter I'm happy as a pig in shit. Then again, I do have heat and clean water, and a lot of freedom (for now).
World of difference - Edmonton's infra-structure compared to Russia's. Could you imagine a central heat station pumping steam out to the city?
Well, I don't smoke pot or drink alcohol; and a former cigarette smoker. Seems to me both alcohol and cigarettes bring a lot of grief to those who use them.
Maybe alcohol and cigarettes should be banned like marijuana. Probably millions of people would benefit. Both are clearly a public health issue.
Alas, prohibition doesn't work. So people will continue to ruin their lives with some type substance abuse. Example, The Austin, TX District Attorney was arrested for DWI last week. Clearly a career stopper.
Sorry, I don't believe making marijuana legal is a solution.
E-cigarettes are way healthier - perhaps with their popularity tobacco can fade away - for smoking anyway.
Perhaps not a solution - but a hell of a good start.
Well then, Narley, what IS your solution? Hint: despite what you think, "just say no" is NOT an option. That much should be obvious.
I don't know the solution.if I did I'd be rich. It's just sad that so many otherwise intelligent and rational people throw their lives away and risk jail for some type of substance abuse. And even defend it's use, as you seem to be doing here.
The solution's obvious, Narley, you just refuse to see it. How can you defend the prohibition of a plant used for thousands of years and only made illegal recently because of the political influence of a small handful of very rich men for the sole purpose of increasing their own net worth? I get the impression you don't know much about the history of marijuana prohibition. You do realize it had nothing to do with adverse health effects, right?
If it was illegal to laugh and draw pictures and sing about the past, prisons would profit huge, and some people wouldn't blame the system.
"The drug has proven to be useful for treating trauma of the brain and mind. That's why I'm a fan."
Yeah, not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds, of other useful purposes.
I have a Webster's dictionary from 1938 in my collection that has one single color plate in the front entitled "Plants of great commercial value." Along with the expected plants like cotton, tobacco, flax and sugar cane, it also has hemp. My mom gave it to me as a birthday present one year a long time ago just because of that plate. She was cool and had a great sense of humor. I certainly didn't need another dictionary, heheh.
That's cool!
Yeah, needless to say it's one of my favorite books. Especially now that she's gone.
But it's not illegal to laugh, draw pictures and sing about the past. However, it is illegal to smoke pot.
For all the wrong reasons, and if you believe otherwise, it's because of the media and/or environment you grew up in. Nothing against you, but if you grew up with headhunters, you will collect heads with pride.
Very well put.
Thanks, it's our primary evolutionary obstacle. But I believe we'll get unstuck.
I think so too. If we have enough time, that is. The jury's still out on that one, unfortunately.
Ask about the Conglomerate and Departmenral Governance anytime. It's the only hope I've come across.
I will. Or I'll check the archives and read up on it again. I've read a lot of your threads about it so far, but fat too much on my plate to give it much time right now. But if I ever get around to seriously plan and work towards my business idea, I certainly will. I'm hoping sometime this summer I can devote some more time to it, but I have to get some other things out of the way first. Where does the time go?
Ya, no that's totally understandable. I'll keep posting little articles about the details, and try to keep them short. As long as you keep reading!
No one has time. It all needs to come together recognizing that. We can make the most of what we have and try to make the situation a strategic advantage.
Yeah, I'll read them for sure. I try to read just about every post here (easier lately with the lack of new posts) so it won't be a problem.
Gotta go though, Kavatz. It's after three and if I don't log off now, I'll sleep the day away tomorrow.
See you tomorrow night.
If I grew up with headhunters and was part of their culture I probably would collect heads with pride. What the hell does that have to with anything?
Marijuana has some health benefits. But most people just use it to get more stupid. It's just another substance to abuse. Just what we need. Right?
I suppose being in texas that means you are a supporter for fossil fuel?
I don't know what you mean by support it. I worked in the oil field as a young man, and I use gas in my truck and car. Does that make me evil?
No - one must use what is available. But do you support ending the use of fossil fuel or are you behind supporting expanding fracking and drilling?
Fracking should be outlawed. Not enough attention given to ending it. Fracking will eventually be an environmental disaster. People should be up in arms.
Drilling doesn't have the same potential for disaster as fracking. With the exception is off shore drilling.
So, do I support ways to end the need for fossil fuel? Yes.
Then you would not necessarily have been a proud headhunter.
If you can't draw the parallel...
Actually, it doesn't make people stupid. That's just what you believe, reinforced daily by your environment. The people you prefer to associate with probably have the same opinion.
It makes you smarter, more creative, more appreciative, sympathetic, spiritual, calmer and less reactive, the list goes on and on.
The people you're talking about would be doing whatever they can to get stupider.
Anyone who wants weed will get it, legal or not.
To prove your last remaining "point", you would have to observe pot smokers in an environment without propaganda, other substances (chemicals in the environment, chemicals you ingest, stuff you huff, booze, etc.), and the people would have to have come from a range of social conditions. What I'm saying as the results you're currently drawing from have confounding variables, so the results are skewed and not reliable.
Probably saw and believed reefer madness.
Believe what you will. I'll not go near it our knowingly associate with people who use any illegal substance. I also don't like drunks id that matters.
Then that's how life will be for you no matter what the rules are. If weed was free and abundant, you and your friends and family would be exactly the same.
You wouldn't have to have aspirin OR weed near you.
There would be a lot less crime and killing (which was your original concern I think).
There would be a lot less innocent people behind bars.
There would be a lot less alcohol abuse, also saving lives.
People wouldn't care about it and it wouldn't be a gateway to bad drugs.
Not in Colorado or Washington.
I might try to find out when all that started happening and why.
regulation starts here...
"[O]n 30 June 1906 President Roosevelt signed the Food and Drugs Act, known simply as the Wiley Act... The basis of the law rested on the regulation of product labeling rather than pre-market approval." US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "FDA History - Part I," FDA website (accessed Dec. 28, 2011) "An Act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes... That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded... if the package fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein."
first outlawed here;
"Bolstered by Progressive Era faith in big government, the 1910s marked a high tide of prohibitionist sentiment in America. In 1914 and 1916, alcohol prohibition initiatives would make the state ballot. Meanwhile, the legislature was tackling such morals issues as prostitution, racetrack gambling, prizefighting, liquor, and oral sex. Amidst this profusion of vices, Indian hemp [aka cannabis] was but a minor afterthought… states banned cannabis in the 1910s: Massachusetts in 1911 (150 KB); Maine, Wyoming and Indiana in 1913; New York City in 1914; Utah and Vermont in 1915; Colorado and Nevada in 1917. As in California, these laws were passed not due to any widespread use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives to discourage future use."
ref; http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000143