Health

Rant

A Modern Day Galileo Tragedy With 100 Times The Significance

Posted 5 months ago|18 comments|632 views
THC is only one of many cannabinoids
VIDEOS
Written by
legaleyesgreen
Colorado Springs, CO
The human body, as well all vertebrates and many invertebrates, produces a special group of endogenous chemicals that are so molecularly similar to each other that they are placed in a category all of their own. There are receptors located all over the body that are designed to respond only to chemicals from this specific group. These receptors are most dense in the brain and liver, but are located in every one of the body's systems, notably the central nervous, immune, lymphatic, and endocrine. Each chemical in the group makes each receptor respond differently and has its own respective place in making the body run properly.

There is a plant in nature that within it contains at least 85 chemicals that are scientifically categorized with the similar chemicals of bodily origin whose receptors are a part of every aspect of bodily function. So far, at least 12 of these plant-derived chemicals have been shown to have a significant effect on the specific receptors they are expected to, each with its own unique effect to offer.

This special group of chemicals has been termed as cannabinoids. Those created inside of the human body are called endocannabinoids. The plant-derived chemicals, from cannabis, are called phytocannabinoids. The whole bodily system is the endocannabinoid system (ECS).

The over 800 peer-reviewed articles which have been piling up mainly outside of the US for the past four decades show that phytocannabinoids could be used to work with the ECS to do some absolutely remarkable things to the human body. THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, which is only one of the 12 chemicals known to affect receptors, only impacts brain receptors when smoked. This unique use of the plant is responsible for, among other things, making chemo patients hungry and letting them keep their food down. Different combinations of phytocannabinoids when targeted to the proper receptors have shown to have the ability to slow down or suppress hundreds of diseases and conditions including autoimmune, neurodegenerative, inflammatory, and cardiovascular diseases. In the lab and animals, they can hunt and kill all forms of cancer cells while simultaneously protecting healthy cells. They have also been shown to have anti-aging effects.

Despite its markedly astonishing potential, the US government holds the staunch position that cannabis has absolutely zero medical benefit. It is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, which means that it is federally recognized as having no currently accepted medical use. Because it is a controlled substance, it is nearly impossible to conduct research on in the states. Many groups have been petitioning and suing for the last 40 years to try to reform the law to recognize its potential and allow for higher quality research, but the government has fervently resisted any changes to the ruling.

It is hard to say why our leaders show no interest in this fascinating plant, but one thing can be said for certain. The individuals making billions of dollars in the booming industry of illness are perfectly content with the public's complete lack of knowledge and concern about this easy to grow plant that could treat hundreds of diseases at once.
UPDATE - 3 days ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6-hHQ3aKjE
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: Good post.

We are obviously loosing the 50 year old "War on Drugs". The drug cartels have more money bigger armies and better armaments than the countries they operate in.

The only way to counter this is to legalize grass and to allow it through prescriptions. Having legitimate local licensed production would cut off the profit motive of the drug dealers.

This would help our farmers and stimulate the economy. Also hemp fiber is wonderful and has thousands of uses and hemp seed is one of the most nutritious foods around.

Smoking weed causes cancer and is even worse than tobacco in that aspect so nebulizers and other delivery systems would be better.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
5 months ago: Would someone who supports the continued criminalization of the use by consenting adults of marijuana - OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE - please show me where in Article 1, Section 8 Congress is empowered to legislate what substances an adult may introduce into their body. Please? Pretty please?

I am not calling for legalization. I am asking for the constitutional basis for the federal government CRIMINALIZING such activities.

Who the FRELL do the denizens of Mordor on the Potomac think they ARE!?!? Where do they get off treating consenting adults like children?!?!
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: This is a very good post.
BC You refer to Article 1, Section 8.
That's just the point. It keeps going back to "Where does it say"?
It shouldn't be just about that. Until that day arrives where they tell us what to do, we have the right to be free in our choices. God help us if they ever did.
The other side of the spectrum is that marijuana kills and hurts stopping the function of normal daily life to go forward, especially if someone is a stoner. Twenty years down the road, they will have regrets if they survived at all. Life would have pass them by in one way or another. Losing their health, not having the education, not having a sound family life.
We have responsibility to ourselves and others. Possibly legalizing this drug would have some benefits, but since people know how to get around almost everything, I wonder what meyhem it would cause also. Why is this group pushing so hard, I don't think they care one bit about the drug cartels in Mx.
I think it is all about themselves getting easier access. I was driving my car in the morning around 8:00 am. A car pulled out in front of me weaving back and forth and hitting the curb almost slamming into me. Two kids out of their minds on drugs. I would think legalizing this drug may lead to example more accidents on the roadways, disturbances at home. It is a cruel world, but a better one without drugs. Too bad they can't get that high from loving life.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: BC You can say that cigarettes are legal. Slowly but surely they are taxed heavily, price of a pack is sky high. Places where smoking is allowed is very restricted. People are trying to kick the habit and they find it hard to do that, especially when facing diseases of high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disorder, lung disease, lost of limb, respiratory conditions, cancer.
So, I guess we can refer to Article 1, Section 8. This isn't going to help anything. People that smoke say that it is beneficial to them. It calms their nerves, they gain confidence. From what I see, their posture becomes poor and they have to run out of an office 10 times a day to smoke. These people are controlled by a substance that is lega.
I would like to hear what else you have to say about it.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: I think that the large private corporations would be scanning the Brazilian rain forest looking for green drugs for the possible cure of being addicted to marajuna.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
4 months ago: Sunny,
My point in asking about Article 1, Section 8 is that the U.S. Congress has no authority to ban ANY substance.

You have talked about "helping something" and problems caused by smoking tobacco. What gives you or your elected representative the right to regulate a consenting adult's behavior? Either they are adults and thus responsible for their actions or they are children. Who do you think you are to be imposing your morality/ethos on another. How would you like if if I were to try to impose MY views on you?

How about YOU do your thing and I do MINE? How about so long as you are not injured or directly threatened by my (or someone else's) activities that you refrain from imposing your view of "the way things ought to be" on someone else? Who made you a judge among the populace?

Remember that the founders considered the sole function of government - ANY GOVERNMENT - to be the protection of the Creator endowed rights of individuals. The founders considered that role to be self-evident.

I see people doing all sorts of things of which I do not approve but so long as they do not injure me I do not perceive any need intervene in their actions.

The whole idea of government restricting what adults do is repugnant to me so long as no one but the participants are harmed. If a restaurant's owner wishes to allow people to smoke in their establishment that is fine. I personally will not dine there but it is entirely the owner's choice.

You have no right or business telling me what substance(s) I may or may not introduce into my body.

Now if, under the influence of said substance(s) I injure you, that is an entirely different affair.

Your right to swing your arms ends just short of my nose. If you bop me in the nose then I have the right to return the favor.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: No, I'm not bopping you on the nose. I'm not violent.
That wasn't my point. I didn't want you to take offense. I also agree that no one should take our rights away.
I don't think it is okay to say "as long as it doesn't hurt me". Sometimes people don't know what is good or not good for them and need guidance. It is the responsibility of someone else to help them through.
Again, why argumentive? I would never impose upon someone's rights. You are jumping the gun because you don't want to hear other people's views that can be expanded upon. You do impose your views on others by thinking one way. There are all sides to a story. By the way, cigarette smoking is band in almost every public place in my area. Restaurants and bars are not allowed to have anyone smoking in their establishments. That is the law. It isn't about whether they decide to, or not. It has been proven 2nd hand smoke is worse than smoking. What I am saying is that Government finds a way no matter what. It doesn't have to say you can't do something, it finds a way to make it difficult. If someone is injuring themselves and trying to get others hooked, that is doing damage to someone else. Possibly ruining the life of someone innocent. I think the founders couldn't see 50 - 60 years down the road. They had no comprehension of what would come. By the way adults no less than children nowadays. They are taught to say NO to drugs.
I don't understand that the founders considered the sole function of government, Any Government to be the protection of the Creator endowed rights of individuals. I don't think that works for all parts of the world as we have seen throughout history. You can't do your thing, and I do mine in society. You have to fit into society and what is good for the majority.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: We need more science research to take an interest in the green plants of the rain forest. I think the health industry the way it is is disgusting in the way they treat people. They rather prolong illnesses until someone dies just to make money.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
4 months ago: Sunny opined:
"Sometimes people don't know what is good or not good for them and need guidance. It is the responsibility of someone else to help them through. "
EXCUSE ME??? Do you realize the unmitigated HUBRIS inherent in that statement? Who do you think you ARE??? What if the poor unfortunate whom you consider incapable of knowing what is best for them disagrees with you? What if they do not WANT you kind, well meant guidance? Does your conviction that you know better than they do what is good for them confer upon you the right to enFORCE/IMPOSE your vision of what is best for them?? BTW your statement here indicates a willingness to infringe others' rights if you believe they are doing something you consider to be harmful to them. Would you want ME to enforce MY way of doing things on YOU??? Would you like it? If you wouldn't like something done to you, why are you so eager to do it to someone else? (BTW, that is the essence of the Golden Rule)

Government is out of control when it finds a way to enforce some restriction of someone's rights. That is the reason why the Constitution was written - to limit/restrict government.

The conditions the Founders addressed are constants of human nature. They will still obtain 60 centurys from now.

According to the founders, governments are instituted among men to safeguard the rights of the people. That principle obtains everywhere. It works everywhere. Whenever government becomes destructive of the rights of the people it has opened the door to be replaced.

I strongly suggest you READ THE DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE and the CONSTITUTION!!! If you find that you cannot agree - COMPLETELY AND UNRESERVEDLY - with the 2nd paragraph, you need to consider coming out of the closet and declaring yourself a statist and socialist.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: Well, BC, I just got home. I guess it isn't as bad as I expected.
Huh?
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: BC If you only knew.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: Well, I can't be a whatever you called me if my family is the very heart of this Constitution. So that is laughable.
Sometimes people like to interpret things their way and not for the good of society. Drugs seem to be your main concern. It isn't mine. The reason we elect leaders and decision makers is because people can't figure out what is best for them on a whole. These people aren't puppets for us, they are Leaders. You keep saying read the Constitution, with nothing behind those words. That's why they make the laws and not you or me.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
Content Removed by BadCyborg
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
4 months ago: Ma'am you are clearly a socialist and a stateist. You insistence upon doing things "for the good of society" and your faith in government to solve all our problems is ample evidence.

What do you mean asserting that your family is the heart of the Constitution. Have you ever read the Constitution? It is the supreme law of the land - or at least it is supposed to be - so it would seem to behoove every adult citizen to be familiar with it. The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our republic. The men who founded this republic stated their basic axioms of reality concerning government in the Declaration.

What do you mean by saying that "[I] keep saying read the Constitution, with nothing behind those words"? What sort of "words" are you expecting?

You wrote:
""The reason we elect leaders and decision makers is because people can't figure out what is best for them on a whole."

I would most vigorously disagree with that assertion. The purpose of government is to safeguard our liberties. The legislature exists to write laws to protect our liberties. The sole purpose of the executive is to enforce those laws - in order to protect our liberties. The judiciary exists to interpret those laws and thereby to protect our liberties. (seeing a trend here?) Nowhere does the Constitution empower or authorize or otherwise induce any member of the government to decide what is best for us.

Oh, and the government is SUPPOSED to be the SERVANT of We The People - not the MASTER. The consent of the governed is the source of government's "just power". THEY work for US!!! Not the other way around.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: You don't make sense. I'm not going to continue this rediculous conversation.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: Whatever. Apparently you don't read what anyone is saying.
Fight with someone your own size involved with drugs. You've got the wrong person.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
4 months ago: I read what you said. I just do know what you are saying. My questions are very straightforward. Why can/do you not simply answer them? I quoted - directly or indirectly - what you said that makes no sense to me. Are you unable to explain/elucidate your meaning? Or do you simply consider yourself above being questioned?

The plain fact is that the Constitution does not give the federal government to legislate what an adult may or may not introduce into their own body. As such any legislation of that sort is extra-constitutional and unlawful. Further it is a clear sign of a desire to reduce us under despotism.

I write this for others not you. You apparently do not have the wit to understand the concept of limited government. Fortunately individuals will most likely not survive six months after the start of hostilities when the revolution comes. Somehow I find that thought comforting.
sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: Well, I do go along with you.
I do understand where you are coming from.
I'm afraid your background and associations may be limited therefore you do not understand where I am coming from. You may be lacking in worldly experience so you become insulting and have a one track thought system.
Why are you so adament? The one thing I don't like is Government getting involved with the freedoms of people. I say it over and over again. When people vote, BC, they are clearly stating what they want. If you want that drug to be legal and accessible, it is up to the people's vote, not Government. I was just saying that Government always finds a way to make it difficult.
Whatever the people want and the majority votes for, will be the best for them in the society they live in.
That is what I am saying.
There are many things I agree with you and there are things I don't.
If you are talking strictly about drugs, I don't agree with you. The only people who would want it legalized are users.

sunny2
sunny2
4 months ago: There won't be a revolution. Get out of your cave and see the light.
The people always win in the USA.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.