General Music Chat

"an oxford study released 6 weeks ago says marijuana prevents and reverses cancer, treats diabetes, and more. "
got a link? cause I read that that study is under severe scrutiny right now and it didn't say that it prevents or reverses - it said it MAY prevent and/or reverse. so quick to believe the study that may suit your need and so quick to refute the MULTIPLE STUDIES that go against your cause. That is not the mark of objectionable debate.

You state it as fact despite that this study is yet to undergo any scholarly review, because it suits you... that is a dangerous proposition.

Not to mention, that even if this IS true (time will tell) it doesn't refute the studies done on it's harmful effects.


"I don't expect you to understand, I also dont expect you, a person who doesn't know anything about me other than what I say in these forums and what is said about me, to judge me for my religious practices, and my spiritual and medical use stem from that. "

-hey partner, sounds like I touched a nerve. Think about that for a minute. I'll do less than understand - I really don't care at all. I haven't said word one that would condemn you... I only argued that 'x is irresponsible because of y and if you do x then u r irresponsible because of y'... don't convert that into a personal attack. I really really don't care... I just enjoy arguing.

furthermore, where exactly have i written something that has given you the mistaken impression that I've judged you for your religious practices?
I give your religion no more or less credence than the flying spaghetti monster religion.

I myself belong to the 'church of tax exemption cause mikev want's tax exemption' and I take a lot of abuse from folks saying that my religion isn't 'real'... but it is... and I really would like tax exemption.

let me also say that I don't think it's reasonable for you to say you use it for medical reasons unless a doctor has prescribed it, (that's the def of medical use... otherwise I could say I use meth/mcdonalds/twinkies for medicinal purposes) but my feeling of it being reasonable should in no way impact your use of the term.




"when a section of society feels that some law is not just, that society has the right, moreso the duty, to redress that issue by civil unrest and civil disobedience. " way to sidestep the FACT that it is illegal and this would ultimately make you irresponsible. If you want it legalized then you get out and vote, be active by going door to door and getting petitions, influence, etc... but you abstain from doing the illegal act because it weakens your argument. Folks that don't smoke would be ten time more likely to get behind you if you abstained... but that doesn't serve your ultimate purpose does it?
Again, you only believe in civil disobedience because it suits your agenda. But lets follow the logic thru for a bit...
why not grow it in your backyard? risk your house and get sent to jail for it? it would give your cause widespread attention? why not? I'll tell you why - because you believe in civil disobedience right up until the point where it costs you anything and stops serving your need to poke smot.


"I am not trying to justify anything to anyone, I am merely defending my right to believe what I choose to believe and my right to do to my body what I choose to do to my body, as long as no one else is affected by it, and then I have to defend my life because no one believes me at my word that I have a good life and no problems brought on by marijuana. It is the cyber-age equivelent of putting a christian on trial for his life back in the first few centuries AD, I get death threats, insults, slander, and more. I speak in public often, after being in these and some other similar forums, I am wondering if I should wear a flak jacket."

and I am actively exercising my right to speak out against your beliefs respectfully... I'm not even asking you to like that.
furthermore, the christians/buddists/jews/etc were killed for their beliefs... you've had to endure my bad spelling - I feel sorry for them - not you.

I never accused you, mike, of condemning anything, I am merely pointing out why I have said the things YOU responded to. I hide behind nothing, I do not claim tax exemption, nor does my church, we pay our taxes...and I fully intend to become the in your face kind of activist when my children are old enough to understand it. I do not want to put my family at risk, however, i am prepared if that day comes, to give it the fight of my life and stand up for what I believe, even if I do have to fall by the wayside...there is no more noble a death than to stand in the face of tyranny, which prohibition is (and no, i don't speak only about marijuana, I think all drugs should be legal, taxed, and regulated, yet I only USE marijuana according to the prescription I got years ago in a marijuana doctors office in a state where it was legal to get that prescription)

Like I said, mike, you, just like everyone else, make presumptions, and you don't even read what I write, because I previously stated that I had a prescription previously, i just dont live in a state that allows it...now..

I hope, if the drug war continues, to one day live in alaska, where because of privacy rights, you can grow 24 plants or less in your home with no risk of jail. They can't even look at them, 25 or more is a crime, 24 or less is not. I would not even need that many...a few plants would probably get me through a year...at least according to what the cops say each plant is worth...

So when you speak of legality, you speak of a concept that is not set in stone, we are one country in which 25 of the states either think its not worth arresting people for or it is great medicine. Either way, that is 50% of the states...but more than 50% of the population.

I cannot find the link to the oxford story, but heres a link to a Reuters study that finds that people who smoke pot for 10-20 years are 62% less likely to get head or neck cancers:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE57O5DC20090825

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - You've heard about using marijuana and drugs derived from it to keep some of the side effects of toxic cancer chemotherapy in check. But what if smoking marijuana for 10 to 20 years could actually protect against certain tumors?
In a study, researchers have found that long-term pot smokers were roughly 62 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancers than people who did not smoke pot.

The new study featured 434 patients with head and neck cancers, which include tumors in the mouth, tongue, nose, sinuses, throat and lymph nodes in the neck, and 547 individuals without these cancers seen in the Greater Boston area from December 1999 to December 2003.

After factoring out the impact of smoking, drinking, and other factors that might influence the results, smoking marijuana from once every two weeks to three times every two weeks, on average, was associated with about half the risk of head and neck cancer, compared with less frequent use.

Those who took up pot smoking at an older age appeared to have less risk of these cancers than those who started it at a younger age.

Compared to people who never smoked pot, those who began smoking marijuana between the ages of 15 and 19 years were 47 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancer, while users who began at age 20 or older had a 61 percent reduced risk, Kelsey and colleagues found.

It's unclear why marijuana would prevent cancer, if in fact the study is borne out by others, but the authors note that chemicals in pot called cannabinoids have been shown to have potential antitumor effects. Other studies have linked marijuana use to a reduced risk of some cancers, such as cancer of the prostate, and now head and neck cancer.

It's also been suggested that smoking pot may help stave off Alzheimer's disease and help combat weight loss associated with AIDS, and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in cancer patients.

Overall, however, research on the effects of marijuana on human health is mixed. Some studies have suggested the drug can increase a person's risk of heart attack or stroke and cause some cancers such as lung cancer.

In the journal Cancer Prevention Research, the researchers emphasize that further research from larger studies is needed to verify this link. Moreover, even if marijuana use were found to protect against these cancers, the risks of use may still outweigh this benefit, they say.

"Marijuana is an entry-level drug and can be associated with later use of more serious addictive drugs, as well as other risk behaviors," warn Dr. Karl T. Kelsey, from Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, and colleagues.

Any policy regarding marijuana use should take this into consideration "and should not be made based on one study's results," they note.

SOURCE: Cancer Prevention Research, August 2009

Tell me Neaderpaul and JW, what bothers you more, the fact that I smoke pot, or the fact that I smoke pot AND make money in the music industry while you struggle to get people to hire you? Does it bother you that I get quarterly checks from ASCAP and BMI while someone like you just pays your yearly dues and gets nothing but the newsletter? Yeah, I think thats it.

What bothers you more? The fact that I've never even thought of paying yearly dues or the the fact that I went on a 4000 mile tour unsigned and totally unsupported, ate out every meal, and came back with cash.

I never accused you, mike, of condemning anything, I am merely pointing out why I have said the things YOU responded to.

ok, I mistook that for a reference to me. my bad.

I do not want to put my family at risk,

that my friend was a setup.
sounds to me like you WILL AND DO put your family at risk if it means you can poke mot... here's the ugly truth:
if someone comes to your house from child protection services and finds out that you poke mot w/o a valid permit in that state you could loose your kids... that means you are putting them at some limited risk.. and you are willing to let them endure that risk if it means you can poke mot.
If I were you: I'd at least consider keeping a low profile about it.

you like apples?

I think all drugs should be legal, taxed, and regulated, yet I only USE marijuana according to the prescription I got years ago in a marijuana doctors office in a state where it was legal to get that prescription)

do you really believe that advocating ALL DRUGS BE LEGAL strengthens your argument? I think you are smarter than that - at least I hope you are.

Like I said, mike, you, just like everyone else, make presumptions, and you don't even read what I write, because I previously stated that I had a prescription previously, i just dont live in a state that allows it...now..

ok then, my bad, I missed that part, but in my defense there's a lot of stuff said here that isn't worth reading to completion. I have only read direct responses to me for the most part.

if in fact the study is borne out by others

Overall, however, research on the effects of marijuana on human health is mixed. Some studies have suggested the drug can increase a person's risk of heart attack or stroke and cause some cancers such as lung cancer.

In the journal Cancer Prevention Research, the researchers emphasize that further research from larger studies is needed to verify this link. Moreover, even if marijuana use were found to protect against these cancers, the risks of use may still outweigh this benefit, they say.

Almost sounds as if they acknowledge previous findings here... again, I'm not going to be so quick to believe the latest study cause they are often found to be flawed later on... and the overwhelming majority of research on the subject so far (and apparently even this study) indicates it has harmful effects... QED.

that my friend was a setup.
sounds to me like you WILL AND DO put your family at risk if it means you can poke mot... here's the ugly truth:
if someone comes to your house from child protection services and finds out that you poke mot w/o a valid permit in that state you could loose your kids... that means you are putting them at some limited risk.. and you are willing to let them endure that risk if it means you can poke mot.
If I were you: I'd at least consider keeping a low profile about it.

As I have stated before, I do not put my family at risk. I do not use my medicine indoors, I do not keep it anywhere anyone but me can get to it, and not indoors. I never possess more than the state has seen fit to consider a minor, ticketable offense. My church practices its rituals outdoors in nature where they belong. I am well aware of the risks, similarly to early christians who had to hide out when doing their religious practices for fear of imprisonment. Worst case scenario is a ticket and a chance to plead my case. The state already recognizes my ordainment, and has licensed me to perform weddings in the state. Then again, my state is the only state left in the union that still allows the practice of snake handling. So as far as not having medical marijuana, they have decriminalized to a point, and have the most religious freedom in any state of the union, so it is here I choose to reside. I take risks, I understand that, but my worst case scenario is simple possession, a small fine.

Rev Mike wrote:

if in fact the study is borne out by others

Overall, however, research on the effects of marijuana on human health is mixed. Some studies have suggested the drug can increase a person's risk of heart attack or stroke and cause some cancers such as lung cancer.

In the journal Cancer Prevention Research, the researchers emphasize that further research from larger studies is needed to verify this link. Moreover, even if marijuana use were found to protect against these cancers, the risks of use may still outweigh this benefit, they say.



Almost sounds as if they acknowledge previous findings here... again, I'm not going to be so quick to believe the latest study cause they are often found to be flawed later on... and the overwhelming majority of research on the subject so far (and apparently even this study) indicates it has harmful effects... QED.

the reason the data is really incomplete is because of its illegality, only one legal source exists in the US to get the stuff, and there is so much red tape, and such a taboo on the name of the substance alone, that its not worth it to the doctors who know big pharmacutical will never really tolerate their results anyway.

I have a perspective I would like to share, I am going to go from a christian perspective...because alot of the rituals my church uses stem from gnostic christianity...

God puts a substance on the planet specifically designed for humans to contact him while using. It has over 200 textile uses, 150 and growing medical uses, and contains a chemical for which our brain has specifically designed receptors...Satan doesn't want people to have that connection to god, so he uses his minions to create such horrifying stories about that substance that it becomes as taboo as child pornography for a long time, several generations...does it really make sense that something as non-lethal is considered so evil? Meanwhile, if a doctor tells you to take a prescription of Oxycontin, the most addictive legal drug, more addictive than MOST illegal drugs, you don't have a problem with that? You then become a slave to that addiction and its all because satan managed to demonize pot so much, you'd rather risk it with the more dangerous, but legally prescribed alternative to treat your pain. It just doesn't make sense to me.

God puts a substance on the planet specifically designed for humans to contact him while using.

No just no. God gave us his clear will in the bible. We do not need anything else to understand how to live our lives to please him. He didn't tell us to use it.

and contains a chemical for which our brain has specifically designed receptors...

Our body also responds to tobacco which we both agree is harmful.

Meanwhile, if a doctor tells you to take a prescription of Oxycontin, the most addictive legal drug, more addictive than MOST illegal drugs, you don't have a problem with that?

Yes I do.

Our body also responds to tobacco which we both agree is harmful.

our bodies do respond to tobacco, it is a stimulant like many other drugs, but we do not have specially designed receptors in our brains for those chemicals.

No just no. God gave us his clear will in the bible. We do not need anything else to understand how to live our lives to please him. He didn't tell us to use it.

If you are satisfied with that, then more power to you, but I wasn't, I kept searching beyond just the bible of today, I sought the bible that jesus taught from, it has a much different picture than the current one...did you know that when jesus refers to the water of life, or john in revelations refers to the water of life, that goes back to the books of soloman and jubilees, since removed from the bible, but the "water of life" that christ promised would come from within his belly, is urine. Yes, urine. Ancient gnostic christians would use psylicibin and amanita muscaria mushrooms to connect with god, but they would also "recycle" by then sharing their urine with the congregation, and the congregation would then trip on the mushroom's psychodelic chemicals in the urine. Yes, urine is safe to drink, militaries teach in survival school that it tastes horrible, but can save your life in the desert. You may not agree with these practices, and my church DOES NOT recycle in that way, so we are on common ground there...but if you are 100% sure you know the truth, then more power to you, you know more than I...I just know what I have seen and therefore believe, I don't want to force it on anyone, but i am always willing to share it if you seek it. I just ask that you show me the courtesy of not judging me as I do not judge you for your beliefs.

Rev Mike wrote:
Meanwhile, if a doctor tells you to take a prescription of Oxycontin, the most addictive legal drug, more addictive than MOST illegal drugs, you don't have a problem with that?


Yes I do.

I am glad you agree at least on that issue. I think the government wants us all on pills. 2500 kids a day start taking pills recreationally according to NBC news tonight.

our bodies do respond to tobacco, it is a stimulant like many other drugs, but we do not have specially designed receptors in our brains for those chemicals.

If we respond to it were designed to. We also respond to hemlock and many other things that are harmful. That doesn't mean we are to use them.

If you are satisfied with that, then more power to you, but I wasn't, I kept searching beyond just the bible of today,

I am satisfied with the bible. I believe the promises God made in the bible that it is his complete inspired word and ALL we need to know to live a happy healthy life pleasing to him and all we need to know to obtain salvation.

I don't want to force it on anyone, but i am always willing to share it if you seek it. I just ask that you show me the courtesy of not judging me as I do not judge you for your beliefs.

That sounds suspiciously close to the "judge not lest ye be judged yourselves" verse people often misuse. Because we are to "rebuke a brother in err" and "rightfully divide the word of God"

that my friend was a setup.
sounds to me like you WILL AND DO put your family at risk if it means you can poke mot... here's the ugly truth:
if someone comes to your house from child protection services and finds out that you poke mot w/o a valid permit in that state you could loose your kids... that means you are putting them at some limited risk.. and you are willing to let them endure that risk if it means you can poke mot.
If I were you: I'd at least consider keeping a low profile about it.

As I have stated before, I do not put my family at risk. I do not use my medicine indoors, I do not keep it anywhere anyone but me can get to it, and not indoors. I never possess more than the state has seen fit to consider a minor, ticketable offense. My church practices its rituals outdoors in nature where they belong. I am well aware of the risks, similarly to early christians who had to hide out when doing their religious practices for fear of imprisonment. Worst case scenario is a ticket and a chance to plead my case. The state already recognizes my ordainment, and has licensed me to perform weddings in the state. Then again, my state is the only state left in the union that still allows the practice of snake handling. So as far as not having medical marijuana, they have decriminalized to a point, and have the most religious freedom in any state of the union, so it is here I choose to reside. I take risks, I understand that, but my worst case scenario is simple possession, a small fine.

what if the neighbor smells it, they catch you with it, look into your radical support of it and decide to take your kids away? the do it all the time to alcoholics.
what if they catch you at the dealers house - you get charged with what the dealer has? what if someone reads your posts and then child services is called? your answer is THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN? denial is not just a river friend.

u r in absolute denial. I put it right there for you and you refuse to look. If you had said "maybe I am puttin' my fam at risk because there is admittedly some potential - no matter how far fetched - that it could harm them... but given the limited potential and the fact that I find it so wonderful I'm going to continue" I'd have had more respect for you...

not smart. you are so in denial that you can't even admit that possibility exists no matter how remote? jeez, what passes for enlightenment these days.
please take your own advice and at least wait to be an advocate till your kids are out of the house partner or don't tell me how you are responsible.


"who know big pharmacutical will never really tolerate their results anyway." that is such a cop out... they would be the ones producing it - that would mean more revenue for them with a pre-existing market.

"God puts a substance on the planet specifically designed for humans to contact him while using. It has over 200 textile uses, 150 and growing medical uses, and contains a chemical for which our brain has specifically designed receptors...Satan doesn't want people to have that connection to god, so he uses his minions to create such horrifying stories about that substance that it becomes as taboo as child pornography for a long time, several generations...does it really make sense that something as non-lethal is considered so evil? Meanwhile, if a doctor tells you to take a prescription of Oxycontin, the most addictive legal drug, more addictive than MOST illegal drugs, you don't have a problem with that? You then become a slave to that addiction and its all because satan managed to demonize pot so much, you'd rather risk it with the more dangerous, but legally prescribed alternative to treat your pain. It just doesn't make sense to me."
your story is amusing. I could poke so many holes in that, but what would be the point...
remember: I'm all for legalizing it.
I've never said you shouldn't, and don't care if you do. My only contentions are to get you to consider A) it COULD harm your family and B) it IS irresponsible to some degree and C) to inform you that you might want to keep a low prof in view of these factors and to counter silly conspiracy theories about why it's illegal and how it's a wonder drug that has no ill effects. other than that -you r preachin' to the choir.

for the record I can't stand the idea of all the drugs pushed legally on folks: that has nothing to do with pot.

I had a friend many years ago, who had an interesting theory about recreational drugs and religion.

He said:

"Drugs are satan's answer to prayer."

I found it interesting, but later I wondered if it wasn't more than merely an interesting statement. At the time I had a limited prayer life. Later, I began praying and meditating much more frequently, and for longer periods of time.

Several times, I had what can only be described as very intense highs. Drug-like highs.

When I was younger I was a person who had to try new things, if only once, just to experience them. And drugs were no exception. I've tried many different drugs before, so I know what the high feels like.

Well, several times in prayer, I have experienced nearly identical highs, and it made me recall my friend's theory.

But an important distinction here, is that one, was an induced high by chemicals, of which there was little if any control over. It took you where it took you, and it ended when it wore off. But you had little control over either. IT WAS IN CONTROL OF YOU.

Whereas, a natural high, through prayer or meditation, did not require chemicals or any other substance. It was available wherever and whenever you chose, and THIS WAS IN YOUR CONTROL.

So, it may very well be, that drugs are actually an IMMITATION of what God actually intends, namely a truly natural high, that brings pleasure and a sense of well being, a connection with the divine, and all without any side effects whatsoever, including anxiety, paranoia, cancer or overdoses.

But whatever the case may be, Mike, your logic is flawed, at least in the idea that God created a plant for the PURPOSES you describe.

I say this, because it is NOT drugs which make you high. Drugs are merely TRIGGERS of chemical reactions that already occur in your brain. It is your BRAIN giving you the experience of being high. What drugs do, is to interact with receptors on cells or enzymes, that regulate the rates of chemical reactions in the brain. These regulating functions can either be inhibited or mimicked through drugs attaching to the receptors. In other words, a drug will either stop a process from occuring in the brain, or mimic a reaction.

The main point, is that the brain is releasing chemicals that already exist in your brain, the drugs merely FORCE this reaction to occur.

So, to suggest that God wants us to use drugs to ARTIFICIALLY induce a reaction that ALREADY OCCURS NATURALLY in the brain, and can occur WITHOUT the use of drugs, would be to suggest that God prefers artificially induced experiences to the TRULY NATURAL experiences He has already made available to you, IN YOUR BRAIN ALONE!

Could that be true?

.

It could also mean that you are special (as opposed to gifted) or schitzophrenic, Craig.

Used properly, tobacco is a useful medicine. It's never used properly these days.

A great Hindi master once said that LSD was a typically American way of reaching the nirvana state that he had worked his whole life to achive. "Take the pill, it's quicker." Good argument, that, to a degree, as long as you accept the fact that he was being sarcastic.

But to deny hundreds of years of aboriginal use in a word or a book seems a little heavy-handed, to me. We are more than chemicals & electrically charged synapses, for sure, but approaching the concept of drug use like the shaman, shows a certain respect & restraint. Yes, I said restraint.

The shaman knows because he has been taught by others before him that he must keep to a simple diet & life style before he uses that ayahuasca, or his visions will be polluted, if the drug doesn't kill him.

Expecting ppl to accept your way alone is rather pig-headed. Your way simply won't work for us all. Some ppl need that little extra push before they can accept or acknowledge the other.

This is not to say that they will need that drug throughout their lives, or that they should take it daily until they "get it." (Another fallacy, in my opinion, used by "users" who don't get the concept of "respect for the drug.")

Allow & acknowledge the proper use, & you will get responsible users. Outlaw it in an off-handed way in your religious zeal, & you will get far more repercussions - like those we see in our culture every day as we look at the lines at the methodone clinics, who dispense the drug without even trying to reduce the dose. Or look at the ppl lying in the gutter due to their own irresponsible use. The list goes on of ruined lives.

Mike is not a responsible user. We can see that. Pot is a crutch that he cannot do without & feel comfortable. But to make claim that 'because this man cannot handle things responsibly, it means that no one can or should,' is also wrong.