Medical Marijuana - Compassion, Decriminalization, Human rights...

These are the rules we agreed to play by here http://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/18562-Forum-Rules

If you R29k or Ray can't seem to abide by these rules I am sure it can be arranged for your Ban..

For me you have already attacked my character , my way of life, and my people and don't even have the awareness to know how. You hide behind some computer screen ripping off these huge generalizations on many topics with no accountability or knowledge about what you attack and expect there are no consequences for it. The part that is most troubling about it to me is there are many here that would like to seriously discuss this issue as well as others and you both seem not even to have the basic social skills to even respect someone's point of view if it differs from your own .. I say enough .. Let me see your next words are going to be either" I didn't mean it that way" or this one is priceless " And Redroad this is not an attack on your belief system" followed by "what you said is blatant B.S" There is no way in hell you would ever get away with saying that to someones face .. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining

 

This piece was hilarious the way you join it up to make it look bad, you should be working for Fox news

 

I never claimed to be the foremost on anything , my only statement was "Anything that I have added to this thread is based on what I have lived personally and has been passed down to me by my elders and I was given permission to speak about." is that so hard for you to understand

A little time in the sweat lodge would do you good and it is your words I give no credence to not others lets be clear on that point

Why would I provide you anything? Proper info .. You still haven't given me the standards on proper info, Proper evidence and
Proper source

 

There was no joining necessary these are your words verbatim "I'm still waiting for Redroad to tell me who was living to 150 years old in the past. And Redroad this is not an attack on your belief system, I just have a big issue when people state blatant bs and expect
everyone else to take it as fact! " Nice try

The sad part about it is you don't even see that it looks bad and why

 

Because the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim

 

If that is true you have a lot of burden on you

 

I have no interest in discussing anything else with you, to be brutally honest you don't come across to me as a sane person.
If I have an issue with Oral Traditions and I state that and you take it as an attack on you and your culture ? Apparently the whole world
revolves around you. I have no idea how a discussion about weed degenerated to this but at least I can see the person you really are, good day.

 

Now you want to take your toys and go home .. The issue evolved the way it did because you can't just accept someones sacred point of view as being theirs and theirs alone without insisting it be flawed in some way if it doesn't fit your understanding of things ..

This is how the world looks to me and my NDN ways

 

@redroad: It's amazing how so much feeling can be conveyed without uttering a single word.

R.I.P. Carl Sagan.

(An avid pot smoker, btw)

With regard to some of the comments that have been made here, this is why Jesus Christ said "Cast not thy pearls before swine...Nor lie down with dogs, lest ye get up with fleas"

:Miki.

 

$2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found

 

"When it's raining the pebbles have the same shape."

"The masters write the history not the slaves."

"One man's garbage is another man's treasure."

"To be is the essence, to have is the illusion."

 

That's the appeal to popularity logical fallacy

 

@Ray
You may or may not see this as possible but when even a placebo is administered the purity of intention of the practitioner can influence the final result.

Yen said "Cultures which have respected elderly as a source of wisdom have survived as long as they did that."

you said "Survived yes but with terrible infant and adult mortality rates "

I bring this up only to be helpful .. if you were to say Survived yes but with terrible infant and adult mortality rates generally speaking. I could agree, in part, that is a truthful statement .. but when you say "Survived yes but with terrible infant and adult mortality rates " it is not entirely truthful given there are instances where there were not terrible infant and adult mortality rates, that is what I mean by generalizations ..
Also infant and adult mortality rates for many of my people during 16 and 17 hundreds was brought about by

"Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]"

See here http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm Early bio terrorism

So it was not the failure of the elders and their teachings, which you seem to imply by your generalization, but rather the profane acts of other peoples that was responsible in part for higher infant and adult mortality rates. So one could conclude that the word higher may not even be relevant if we were to take away those resultant deaths when speaking about mortality rates.

 

I see even less reason to trust your oral tradition than that of the old testament and noah's people living to be 800.

Test it, Document it, Then ill believe it.

And none of this is in conflict with my claim, Its a no duh statement. Its like saying that mortality rates in rome were the same as they are are to day ... Just the whole war and conquest brought them down a bit.
Well obviously war will do that but that still leaves the deaths from what are now preventable illness's

 

Ray .. It is clear that I will never be able to satisfy the terms of your burden of proof regarding some of my people living to be 150 years bacause you or R29k are not open to the idea that the passing of facts and traditions from one generation to next could or would end in a current body of truth.. You only have my assurances that it is so. That being said without an in depth explanation of why I have no reservation or doubts what was told to me is entirely true we are at an impasse .. The way I see it there are 2 things that could happen here one I could could go into with great detail about the inner workings of oral tradition and its integrity but frankly speaking it's clear that you 2 have no interest in learning about that. So that leaves a second option, is it plausible someone could live that long ? and that involves you doing the heavy lifting and not me .. I vote for that given our history so far ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/lo...one-alive-today-will-live-to-be-150-years-old

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze7a.html

There are many more instances of this just do some research if your interested..

 

Yep either that or we just accept all oral traditions to be true.

Which isn't evidence its an opinion.

Again your opinion on the trustworthiness of the people stating this is not evidence.

Dosnt back up your claim

Appeal to authority, Its not important what someone believes its what they can prove that's important

http://www.creationscience.com There are many more instances of this just do some research if your interested..

 

I am not clear how Dr. Brown's book addresses the plausibility of someone living to be 150 years or more ??

Like i said .. "The way I see it there are 2 things that could happen here one I could could go into with great detail about the inner workings of oral tradition and its integrity but frankly speaking it's clear that you 2 have no interest in learning about that. So that leaves a second option, is it plausible someone could live that long ? and that involves you doing the heavy lifting and not me .. I vote for that given our history so far" ..

I vote that we move on here Ray so we can get back to talking about the original posting .. .. What say you Ray? .. I would be open to discussing this further so start another thread

 

@redroad: I second -THAT- motion (SHEESH!)

Okay. So the problem that exists here (meaning the issue, not the arguments about belief systems and homeopathy) Is as follows:

1 ) There are those who wish to smoke pot to ease pain / suffering, and perhaps even bolster appetite.

2 ) Then, there are those who wish to use pot for recreational purposes.

3 ) Then, there are those who either can't smoke pot or won't, and want to prevent those who want to smoke pot from doing exactly that.

My question is this: What gives the members of Group 3 the right to do this?

 

@MJ there certainly is no violation of any natural laws as a medicine and as far as the Hippocratic Oath ("Do no harm") precedent has already been established in medical use states. It would seem at least here in the U.S. the federal government has themselves boxed in as far as whether it is considered a medicine by legal definition .. So with Washington state and Colorado pushing the status of whether it is a legally a medicine will be a battle that is bound to be fought in the near future .. It will be interesting to see the developments .. Short answer they have no right IMHO