What is Digg?385 Comments
- NikoKun, on 11/13/2007, -23/+460Of course the government new... they've been doing studies on Marijuana since the freaking LaGuardia commission and they knew back then it was harmless, and what did they do with the documents from that study? Destroy them of course... It didn't matter because they had other morals and agendas mixed in all this, to keep it illegal.
I'm surprised the cancer shrinking effect was known since the 70s but I suppose thats not unbelievable. You really have to wonder if the pharmas and cancer societies had anything to do with this... I mean, if even a semi cure for cancer was known back then, they wouldn't be making as much money as they are now... thats for sure... So obviously they'd have wanted to cover it up. Treatments make more money than cures, and you get more money in donations and grants, trying to endlessly find a 'cure'.
I just find it disappointing that we are still a human race, ruled by people who refuse to change their ideas, even when there is incredible positive evidence right in front of them. Are we incapable of swallowing our embarrassments and failures so much that we try to eliminate any facts that disagree? The government could very easily turn legalization into a positive event in our countries history, saving money and making money, and supporting freedom all around. But it just seems like their desire to police our morals, blinds them to anything else... - NikoKun, on 11/13/2007, -12/+382Just adding:
It's hard to make money off of a medicine, if anyone could just grow it themselves. - spudnic, on 11/08/2007, -11/+318"it also makes you lazy and stupid"
So does television. don't see any bans on that. - redrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -8/+251Wait?! Are you saying legalizing marijuana would generate government revenue, reduce the income of drug dealers, lower prison populations (which are over-populated)??!?!?!?!?!
But, but, but, the government tells me drugs are bad?!
I'm confused! - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -9/+108the stockholders of the prison corporations would implement a rex 84 scenario if they can't keep marijuana prohibition laws on the books.
the stiffer the penalty, the higher the prison-stock futures go --- and that is FACT. fill the prisons as fast as they can, so they can build more, and more, and more, and more.
this is the work of the lobbyist system. - jcjface, on 10/12/2007, -5/+98Ok, I know this isn't going to be a popular idea, but it might be time to violently overthrow the Federal government. Is it just me or have they not only gotten WAY bigger than the framers intended, but have started to lie to us with great ease in pursuit of supporting their own ideology, with no regard for the truth or the well being of it's citizens? And why have they been able to accomplish this? Because we have become to complacent to do anything about it. They tap our phones, they make medications they don't agree with, like Plan B, prescription only, despite the recommendation of what is supposed to be a non-political agency telling them it should be over the counter, they spend billions on abstinence only education, even though study after study has shown that not only does it not work, but actually increases teen pregnancy and STD proliferation.
If you ask me, it's time to take our country back. - Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+83And the story is about an event that is 33 years old.
That doesn't mean its not worth reiterating. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+78America will crush under the weight of its corruption.. Sooner than you think......
I'm serious.. I can't name another developed country that actually enjoys having laws that are punitive, and set up in such a fashion that is vague and almost always leads to imprisonment. And within the US there are states that have laws & punishments worse than some of the most dictatorial regimes of the developing world.. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+67This is your brain after the war on drugs, kids.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -15/+76Hate to say it doesn't surprise me, but those Bastards!
- mtrip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56But that drug is incredibly expensive and produced by a major drug corporation, not grown in people's gardens.
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55 NikoKun, you beat me to it. That is the single main reason why the industry hasn't taken off. Tobacco can't be easily grown indoors, alcohol can be made, but it's difficult and risk of accidental poisoning is high. With marijuana the link between the supplier and the consumer would be severed, there would be no middle man and no tax. The only ones making profits would be the ones selling seeds. Alcohol and Tobacco taxation make up a huge chunk of tax revenue. The government is not going to be giving that up. In addition, decriminalizing drugs would have to imply acquainting all those that are currently detained for marijuana possession and potentially even compensating them. Which politician in the right mind would do that?!
- Misaiato, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56Sweet! I'm going to be cancer free forever!
- LucasKane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51That's six more years of oppressed research!
- r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49Well that was certainly one of the dumber comments I've read in a while.
- LucasKane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46Why can't you have both? Why the tunnel vision? How about some REAL research on this, could possibily be the cheapest cancer drug ever.
- cljordan1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48@digiwombat
Pot head agenda??? To YOU it may be about the pot, but to a cancer patient, I can assure you it would be about the cancer.
An open standard drug? Yeah... they have been real successful with that........... - mccrusc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44I had this Idea one day, that, maybe someone should suggest that all of their pot-smoking friends just take their extra seeds and sprinkle them in public places, parks, forests, and just get this stuff growing everywhere. It would be really hard to keep illegal if it grew wild in everybody's back yard.
But, someone would probably get in alot of trouble for suggesting something like that. It's probaly a bad Idea. I would never have the balls to suggest something like that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+53really? Show me what medicine can emliminate uncurable brain cancer.....
***** dumbass! - CletusJones, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40It is not a tooma!
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37"You really have to wonder if the pharmas and cancer societies had anything to do with this... I mean, if even a semi cure for cancer was known back then, they wouldn't be making as much money as they are now."
As much as I love a good conspiracy the logic that "Pharma profits from cancer therefore Pharma doesn't want a cure for cancer" is actually very faulty when you play out the whole scenario.
let's look at the situation:
Pharma does profit from you being sick, the longer you're sick without dying the more money Pharma can make.
The cancer that we're(non-phrama) most interested in curing is terminal cases.
You will eventually die of something, but probably live longer if you eliminate terminal cancer.
The older you are the more general health problems you have.
So the longer you live the more money Pharma can make from you.
So, even for purely economic reasons, Pharma wants you to live a long life, people who die of cancer are not return customers.
Pharma doesn't want people to die, ethically AND economically. They might like you chronically ill (or thinking you're chronicly ill) but they really have a sincere and very real economic motive to keep you alive. - Legato, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32this is probably one of the only stories you will ever see on digg that isn't marginalized by being a few years old...
- Authustian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I'm with ya on wanting to start our government over. But if anyone even got close to starting a revolution, they would all be locked up and represented as terrorists in the media, which in turn would brainwash the masses, and the revolution is over.
We live in an idiocracy. The collaborative decentralized environment of the internet is our only hope.
/short_rant - LucasKane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29And still if ALL of that was true, alcohol which is legal is 10x more responsible for death
- popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Your post is *more* true of alcohol.
Therefore you have failed to make a case for prohibition -- only for personal responsibility. - Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28"We know!" - everyone who already knows
"Dugg!" - People who didn't.
The article isnt written for you. - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30I agree with all of you that it should be studied and used to it's medical purposes, but, we also need to use this as a way to start addressing the larger issue of herbal medicine. Many countries have done studies on herbal medicine and have often found them As or MORE effective than traditional meds. It's a travesty that we have no system in place that allows the FDA to certify them for prescription... especially to the poor who buy $200 a bottle meds when something equal is available for $10 a bottle.
And, imagine what it would be like to implement a partial universal healthcare system utilizing herbal medicine? Very, very inexpensive, with the obvious benefit to the economy of people being significantly healthier.
But, your government is run by robber-barons, so, this will NEVER happen. - crweaks23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@NikoKun & BESTenemy
How many tomato plants do you have hanging around? Maybe a garden with onions, garlic, and carrots in your back yard (or fire escape if you live in nyc like me ha)? I could go on, but you see my point. Just because it's legal does not mean everyone that uses it will become growers.
There would still be middlemen and taxes collected on marijuana for the same reasons the corner deli stays in business. People are either too lazy or too busy to slice the ham and cheese themselves, and don't mind paying a little bit extra to have someone do it for them. - sodade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Too bad it will never happen since this country has become increasingly pussified.
- popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24The true extent of the disinformation campaign surrounding marijuana is truly staggering. I'm still astounded by the number of educated Americans who believe that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes (once more for the record: it is indisputably far safer than either). The entire concept of a gateway drug is still accepted by many as fact -- despite the absurdity that such reasoning alone would make marijuana prohibition our only law based on unproven and untested psychology. The christian right is extremely active in marijuana prohibition -- even though we're talking about a plant (they believe) was made by their god. The alcohol and tobacco industries fight legalization tooth and nail (the last thing the "fortune 500's of inebriation" want is a legal high that you can grow yourself for pennies).
Its no surprise news stores like this don't appear in our papers. How much is that Absolut campaign worth again?
And so our prisons fill up with peaceful, cool, educated people who just wanted an alternative to the more dangerous, violent and less-thoughtful option of alcohol.
If you ever sit on a jury for someone being tried with marijuana posession. Make sure you cast your vote like a free-thinking American. Work for the "not guilty" verdict, or at least hang the jury. This must stop. And it can only stop with us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27it's a tooma!!
- insomn3ak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"A NON-ILLEGAL, OPEN STANDARD DRUG"
...that also poisons the rest of the body, lowers the immune system which could contribute to the death of the patient, and makes life for the patient miserable.
If pot can reduce tumors and potentialy cure cancer, that's a MUCH more desired form of treatment than chemotherapy, radiation, etc. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21No, perhaps "it also makes YOU lazy and stupid". It makes ME relaxed at the end of a hard day of work when I have little else that needs to be done.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20of course this stuff gets shoved under the carpet for reasons mentioned above. People shouldn't however think that smoking is going to be a cure-all for cancer and decry other medicines or treatment techniques. My first job (way back in high school) was working for a cancer research journal and so I've seen the vast variety of cancer, problems, and potential treatments, and what works for one type of malignancy does not always (or sometimes ever) work for other types.
Doctors and the public however should not be deprived of treatment options based on puritanical and corporate politicking. - emjaymj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@snuks
I don't smoke pot, and I'd still like to see it legalized. Not just because it seems to be a an effective treatment for some cancers, which is very good in and of itself. Many people who beat cancer are financially crippled after paying for all the treatment anyways, so this is still very promising even if there's another drug out there that does all the same things. Which I doubt there is, because cancer patients also use cannabis to keep their appetite up.
Mostly though, I want to see it legalized because it really isn't the government's business - and this applies to all drugs, not just marijuana. Tax it, use some of that money on proper drug education, and everybody will be better off. Whose business is it if someone wants to go home after work and spark one up instead of breaking out a six pack? - AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Money is made off of treating symptoms for years, not by curing people.
Hell, they know how to stop HIV/AIDS. The enzyme CKR5 is needed for the virus to bind itself to t-cells. People who lack CKR5 are effectively immune to HIV/AIDS. Rather than working to suppress the production of CKR5, our government is funding the production is extremely expensive drug cocktails that people have to take for life and that also makes them sick in other ways. i.e. Keeping them alive, but sick, and make them sick in other ways to put them on more medication.
Now not legalizing pot, despite the health benefits, is a way to suppress us and keep us from something that may cure illnesses. Smoking and alcohol, both legal and VERY deadly, are legal because they bring in a lot of taxes and make people sick.
This is a government out for itself and to make money, even if it makes us sick. - milkmage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18you are an ASS.
Have you ever had experience with any "NON-ILLEGAL, OPEN STANDARD DRUG" used to treat cancer? Look it up, moron, that ***** is POISON. My dad had cancer, and when the nurses came into administer a particularly nasty from of chemo, they wore GLOVES and MASKS because of the high toxicity. Now, healthy people need to be protected, while they INJECT it into a sick person's body? Side effects include: nausea, vomiting, hair loss, loss of muscle mass.. it's not the cancer that kills it's the treatment. SO you get this poison injected, suffer from side effects, so what do they do.. prescribe MORE DRUGS to mitigate the side effects. Nasty chemo = big money for big pharma, mitigating drugs = STILL MORE MONEY for big pharma
The patient in the room next to my father's didn't have the "good" insurance, so, despite the fact that he had the exact same cancer.. the doctors wouldn't prescribe that nasty ***** because his insurance wouldn't cover it. Big Pharma greed is why people are still dying of cancer today - and why the "cure" for cancer is so "elusive". Sick people are worth a lot of dough to some folks. BTW - the doctors prescribed double dosage for my dad, and gave the other half to the guy in the next room.
Don't tell me this is a pot head agenda - this is big pharma paying politicians to bury anything that could impact their profit. - kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Pot, it is not harmless, use with caution.
This is a product that can be used by people over the age of 18.
The same laws will apply that are now being used to regulate the consumption of Alcohol.
We as citizens have the right to use products that are of a danger to us everyday.
We as citizens have a right to use pot in a responsible way as not to injure others and to be responsible for our actions in the course of our daily lives.
We in this country have been led down a path to believe that some things should be banned because the social order would be put in jeopardy and mayhem would occur if some things were not banned outright.
Forget the argument that it might be beneficial for health or a cure for some sort cancer, how about the fact that it is enjoyable and a certain segment of society would like to enjoy it for the sake of nothing more than how it adds enjoyment to ones life.
People do allot of things in this country for the sheer fact that it is enjoyable, I for one do not care to ride on twirling tea cups and get dizzy , but I defend someones right to do that.
What is so wrong for doing something that makes you feel good, we do it all the time with sporting events and camping, and snow skiing.
i think as a country we have matured enough to know that pot does not cause problems in most of the people that use it, there will always be a segment of society that has problems with anything they choose to do.
Pot is not a answer for life's ills and it surely is not the demon people who oppose it make it out to be. - kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Why does all this PRO-smoking ***** have to come out days after I started trying to quit?
oh and @skyfire
smoke a bowl and relax dood - NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Whats wrong with responsible recreational use?
Besides, why tell people they can't use a drug that they ENJOY to use... which has great effects against cancer, and doesn't have horrible side-effects? - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@popsgg,
You apparently know nothing about the scientific method, unless you're just kidding. For all you know, Marley might have died much sooner had he not smoked marijuana. Or it could be that he smoked so much other factors became involved which overpowered the anti-cancer properties of marijuana. - slipfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13To quote a current movement.
"Wake up and give a *****." - LucasKane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Yes, throw out all the other research that was started with mice!
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16This ***** makes my blood boil more than Jack Thompson's suing rampage.
- Chameleongoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Wow, what a bunch of ***** propaganda "facts" about marijuana. Even just the "Effects on Pregnancy" is the exact opposite of Actual research I have read. How about some actual research before rehashing the same government lies.
- truspector, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@snuks
Does it matter? Why do some people have so much free time on their hands they have to spend it worrying about what other people are doing. I suggest you and wombat get a hobby. - fisharmor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Oh, I get it. Cancer shouldn't be cured because the article is old.
Brilliant. - redrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@ the bob marley comment
Bob Marley died from cancer that started in his toe. All they had to do was perform a simple amputation and he would have lived and continued making music. Thing is, his religion strictly forbids amputing any part of the body, under any circumstances, and he chose to live with the cancer, and died. I really don't think his marijuana habit had anything to do with his illness. - AvidMasturbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I masturbated to this article, while smoking weed.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Ok then, the Digg community, scientists, and the pot smoking world has given ample reason that it should be legal to use recreationally and a overwhelming examples of how it can and is used responsibly. Without using the ignorant "makes you stupid" argument, why shouldn't it be legal? Keep in mind that if you drink or smoke cigarettes, your reasoning should probably not be something that makes drinking or smoking illegal as well. So far the debate score is about 1000 to 1 in favor of legalization... your turn.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 374 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is