What medicinal cannabis can do for you

[Androidpk]

I was originally going to post this in the politics folder but i'm not interested in discussing the politics behind this for this particular thread. This is for the science that has been done and cases showing the extreme benefits that it imparts on people with certain illnesses and diseases.

This video is on parkinsons disease and cannabis and it's split up into 3 parts. It's mostly an interview with Michael J Fox which is definitely worth watching but check out this particular section where it shows a man with progressed parkinsons and what a drastic difference a cannabis extraction makes for him, going from wheel chair bound to driving a car on his own.

http://youtu.be/En5HJBxstVk?t=13m25s

[Latrinsorm]

Cause psychosis.

I'm not some 1%er like the distinguished Mr. PK with his internet video films, so I'll leave it at that.

[Androidpk]

Cause psychosis.

You can either suffer from 500+ seizures a week, all year round. Or you can consume a small amount of non-psychoactive cannabis concentrate, and run the (unverified) risk of future psychosis issues.

What do you choose, Mr. Latrin?

[Hightower]

Cause psychosis.

I'm not some 1%er like the distinguished Mr. PK with his internet video films, so I'll leave it at that.

Once again, your facts are incorrect. Psychotic symptoms are to psychosis in precisely the same way that coughing is to lung cancer. Just because you have one, does not necessarily mean you have the other. Also, as we covered before, the study you're relying upon required only 1 psychotic symptom from the list of 20 symptoms for a positive result, which is in no way similar or in any way close to a diagnosis of clinical psychosis. And finally, the conclusion rests upon a meta-analysis, cited in the resources for your study that demonstrates an increased risk of developing clinical psychosis as the number and prevalence of psychotic symptoms increases. However, it is correlational, NOT causal. And even if it were, the study does not confirm that psychotic symptoms resulting from one source or another are all equivalent. After reading your study, it was unclear to me how they differentiated symptoms of smoking marijuana from persistent psychotic symptoms when all that was required for a positive was a single answer of "yes" on the question: Have you had any of these symptoms during the test period (which lasted for several years).

But we've been through all of this already, and yet here you are once again claiming that marijuana causes psychosis. You are lying. And I am exposing you. Again. GTFO!

~Taverkin

[Latrinsorm]

Once again, your facts are incorrect. Psychotic symptoms are to psychosis in precisely the same way that coughing is to lung cancer. Just because you have one, does not necessarily mean you have the other. Also, as we covered before, the study you're relying upon required only 1 psychotic symptom from the list of 20 symptoms for a positive result, which is in no way similar or in any way close to a diagnosis of clinical psychosis. And finally, the conclusion rests upon a meta-analysis, cited in the resources for your study that demonstrates an increased risk of developing clinical psychosis as the number and prevalence of psychotic symptoms increases. However, it is correlational, NOT causal. And even if it were, the study does not confirm that psychotic symptoms resulting from one source or another are all equivalent. After reading your study, it was unclear to me how they differentiated symptoms of smoking marijuana from persistent psychotic symptoms when all that was required for a positive was a single answer of "yes" on the question: Have you had any of these symptoms during the test period (which lasted for several years).

But we've been through all of this already, and yet here you are once again claiming that marijuana causes psychosis. You are lying. And I am exposing you. Again. GTFO!

~Taverkin

Let me ask you this: suppose I had said "cigarettes cause cancer". Would you call that a lie?

[Tgo01]

Let me ask you this: suppose I had said "cigarettes cause cancer". Would you call that a lie?

Well I know someone who has smoked all their life and they never got cancer!11!!!

[Wrathbringer]

Let me ask you this: suppose I had said "cigarettes cause cancer". Would you call that a lie?

I would. It's not the cigarettes, it's the chemicals in smoke. I just latrinsormed latrinsorm!

[Latrinsorm]

I would. It's not the cigarettes, it's the chemicals in smoke. I just latrinsormed latrinsorm!

Ah, but I intended for you to do so. The latrinsorm that enters the latrinsorm game is the latrinsormer latrinsorm.

[Hightower]

Let me ask you this: suppose I had said "cigarettes cause cancer". Would you call that a lie?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'd say there are mountains of evidence to support that conclusion. But we weren't talking about cigarettes and cancer. We were talking about your misrepresentation of the facts with regards to marijuana. It does not, in fact, cause psychosis. This is what your study says. Do us all a favor and stop claiming that your position is based upon empirical evidence. The empirical evidence does not support your claim.

When you say that marijuana causes psychosis, you are saying so based upon your own opinion that you would not like to risk psychotic symptoms because they are correlated with an increased risk of the development of clinical psychosis. You are welcome to that opinion. You are not, however, welcome to produce your own facts to make you feel better about your own opinion.

~Taverkin

[Latrinsorm]

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'd say there are mountains of evidence to support that conclusion. But we weren't talking about cigarettes and cancer.

Of course, which is why I used the subjunctive. My point in bringing it up is that...

We were talking about your misrepresentation of the facts with regards to marijuana. It does not, in fact, cause psychosis. This is what your study says. Do us all a favor and stop claiming that your position is based upon empirical evidence. The empirical evidence does not support your claim.

When you say that marijuana causes psychosis, you are saying so based upon your own opinion that you would not like to risk psychotic symptoms because they are correlated with an increased risk of the development of clinical psychosis. You are welcome to that opinion. You are not, however, welcome to produce your own facts to make you feel better about your own opinion.

~Taverkin

...(1) "are correlated with an increased risk of the development of" is what the word "cause" means in practice, and (2) the so-called mountains of evidence are in no way different between the two assertions. The earliest study I can find is unfortunately in German, but the earliest English study I can find a link to is Wynder and Graham in 1950. (By astonishing coincidence, a very nearly contemporaneous one is also available from the BMJ.)

1. They subjected participants to a questionnaire to establish usage habits.
2. The diagnosis (lung cancer or psychosis) was confirmed by a professional.
3. The rate of incidence was above baseline by a statistically significant amount.
4. Therefore, usage and illness are linked.

If you do not accept this form of argument when it comes to marijuana, why do you when it comes to cigarettes? Or do you not consider any argument at all when it comes to cigarettes, and merely accept the matter on faith?

If you are merely insisting on the once-removed nature of the causation, surely you are aware that there are such things as precancerous cells, and such a distinction could be insisted upon just as easily in the cigarette case?