USMC the Almighty
- Feb 4, 2007
What does this have to do w/ the current topic?
UMMMMMMMM excuse me? where Did "I" say it was harmeless there squiggy?
i posted articles from jacks book? so where did I say it was "HARMLESS" or where did JACK say it?
i read the whole thread 4 times i NEVER SAID it was harmless? i posted information from jacks Book
so once again you CLAIM to have proven something wrong when in reality you are WRONG
you have been outed again and yet you squirm away like a worm on a hook
you as usual are WRONG AGAIN
BTW all of what i posted came from the book I NEVER ONCE SAID IT WAS HARMLESS AS YOU ARE PROJECTING
you sir are a LIAR plain and simple
what part of that was posted from jacks book dont you understand?From your posts:
"More than 100 years have passed since the 1894 British Raj commission study of hashish smokers in India reported cannabis use was harmless and even helpful. Numerous studies since have all agreed: The most prominent being Siler, LaGuardia, Nixon's Shafer Commission, Canada's LeDain Commission, and the California Research Advisory Commission."
When U.S. government sponsored research prior to 1976 indicated that cannabis was harmless or beneficial, the methodology of how each study was done was always presented in detail in the reports; e.g., read The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana (1976) and you will see exactly what the methodology of each medical study was.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself roker? There is a liar here and now twice I have brought your own posts forward to prove that it is you. You keep bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.
what part of that was posted from jacks book dont you understand?
If they harken you back to your crayon days, then by all means use them. But then dopers really don't ever leave their crayond days behind...do they?
I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.
Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.