Why is Marijuana ILLEGAL in the Philippines?

[emow]

Tambal man kaha ni so sa unsang paagi na ma apply nato as medicine? Suyopon? Diritso tag tubag bi.

Kung suyopon hatagi listahan sa mga manuyopay nga naayo sa ilang sakit e example napud nimo si morgan? Pangutana sure ka na mj rajud iyang gi take? Kung mao ngano wala man naayo ang sakit ni bob marley?

all possible modes of medical delivery, vapor, cream, patch, solution. tincture, oil, capsule, pill, etc... According sa interview ni Morgan ni Letterman, mao ra na iya gi take. Ky matud nimu, infection man kaha gikamatyan ni marley, dli mana antibiotic ang cannabis, wala na xay antibiotic propertie.

c charlotte figi ug more than 40 pediatric patients ni Josh Stanley ginatreat ug cannabis for intractable seizures. c rick simpson sa iyang skin cancer, first canadian who admitted cannabis healed him and popularized hemp oil.

look, if ang imu criteria before ang substance mahimu ug medicine is to cure a disease, that is unrealistic and has never been a standard in any food or pharmaco agencies around the world. Treatment is the key word, dont twist the issue. Ky sa akong pagka nurse, tanan pharma medicine for Hiv, cancer, diabetese mellitus, insipidus, high blood, arthritis, lupus, Myasthenia Gravis, parkinsons, ug daghan pa, dili CURE, treatment lang to control the disease. Subay sa anang criteria, ang cannabis maka treat daghan sakit.

Gitubag na tika ug kapila balik, tubaga ni: tanan cannabis marijuana?

[noy]

whether one has experienced the object of th discussion or not, is a red herring. infact, it is a common example in Logic and Philosophy books. the point assumed to be a basis of credibility is experience, which may or may not affect the crediblility of facts given and does not affect anything on either side of the argument. does that mean a doctor cannot be credible in treating a disease if he himself never experienced that disease? a logical fallacy.

hmmm..Yes the doctors study sickness and their corresponding treatments too, so as far as credibility is concerned, they are. now if not experience, what is your credibility to lecture about addiction? hehe
all you've ever done so far is "he said, she said blah blah blah" no pun intended.
Now, while you're yapping about how recreational marijuana should be legalized backed up with links/sources confirming with your point of view, there are also tons of other sources that says otherwise..so how do we draw the line?
mao akong balikon akong pangutana, kasuway na ka nga na addict ug ganja brad?

back on your evaluation, employing double standard is anything but credible. the same defense you did for alcohol and cigarettes is applicable also to cannabis. George Carlin, Seth Rogen, Morgan Freeman, even Barrack Obama used cannabis, able to function normally, provide for themselves and family, and the latter even became president (regrettably). George Carlin ( Big Neuron bless his ethereal matter) always used cannabis whenever he wrote his piece, far from the dysfunctional human being you try to portray. Morgan Freemen uses cannabis on an everyday basis for chronic pain, he seems to be able to make movies even at 70, and he doesnt plan to retire from acting, according to an interview from letterman. these high profiled celebrities have everything to lose to lie about cannabis use, but they know the truth, cannanis is just a plant.

They have my praises for being able to walk in the fine line between advantages and disadvantages...balance of the force kung sa star wars pa..hehe
but the question is, were they addicted to pot? the obvious answer is of course No.
ergo, wrong example my friend.
although too much of anything is bad, compared with alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana can you give you much more pleasure..and because of that, it has a higher risk of addiction.

People in this forum said wih condescending tone in response to cannabis as a medicine should be ashamed of their ignorant pride. why? Just recently, National Institute for Drug Abuse, a US Federal Agency, changed from its significant stand regarding cannabis as medicine. it admitted it has funded studies solely to explore the negaive effects of cannabis for so many years. it is now funding therapeutic effect studies of cannabis, in light of the multitude studies from credible independent spurces arpund the world. It went further, it issued an official statement from its director, admitting cannabis therapeutic effects on cancer and for other ailments.

bro, i dunno why you're telling me this as
i don't have problems with legalizing marijuana for medicinal use...it's the recreational part being legalized that i'm up against.. murag wrong number ka brad..LOL

i have waited for days for anyone to bring up an obvious fact which people are not aware of. instead they rest confident on their ignorance, convinced that what they knew is enough. i have kept my silence about this fact to test the severity of ignorant pride. question: Are all cannabis psychoactive? this is your chance for redemption.

so you think you know best? good for you...
your question is a bit tricky though, well the straight answer would be Yes but if you're asking me if every bit or part of it is psychoactive, then the asnwer is No.

[emow]

hmmm..Yes the doctors study sickness and their corresponding treatments too, so as far as credibility is concerned, they are. now if not experience, what is your credibility to lecture about addiction? hehe
all you've ever done so far is "he said, she said blah blah blah" no pun intended.
Now, while you're yapping about how recreational marijuana should be legalized backed up with links/sources confirming with your point of view, there are also tons of other sources that says otherwise..so how do we draw the line?
mao akong balikon akong pangutana, kasuway na ka nga na addict ug ganja brad?

They have my praises for being able to walk in the fine line between advantages and disadvantages...balance of the force kung sa star wars pa..hehe
but the question is, were they addicted to pot? the obvious answer is of course No.
ergo, wrong example my friend.
although too much of anything is bad, compared with alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana can you give you much more pleasure..and because of that, it has a higher risk of addiction.

bro, i dunno why you're telling me this as
i don't have problems with legalizing marijuana for medicinal use...it's the recreational part being legalized that i'm up against.. murag wrong number ka brad..LOL

so you think you know best? good for you...
your question is a bit tricky though, well the straight answer would be Yes but if you're asking me if every bit or part of it is psychoactive, then the asnwer is No.

1. you are arguing in circles, repetition does not give it any more merit. Have you even bothered to look up 2015 studies? if Dr. Sanjay Gupta said it, would that make any difference? you are now deviating from the main argument. ad hominem bro. it is a very senseless point, why i never experienced psychotic drugs, but i was conducting health teachings to the significant others of my patients. i have never taken nitroglycerin, but i conducted health teachings on that as well. do you mean to say, nursing students must first experience each medication before they can impart knowledge on it or do they base it on literature? should this be even be spelled out to anyone which is pretty obvious? directly answering that senseless question would be dignifying it. theres even no point of reverting that question to you.


2. so you talked as if cannabis is so addictive, then shouldnt they be incapable of escaping cannabis addictiveness? or that just proves the studies we presented that only 9% dependency, not even addiction. isnt it convenient for you to just dismiss their non addiction as easily as that. take note, you have been repeating cannabis has a high risk of addiction when even negative studies on cannabis admit it is by far least addictive. can you put a quantitative figure on your false assumption?

3."people in this forum..." should have been pbvious. i read about blindspots,, but this is ridiculous.

4. you are an idiot. the question "are all cannabis psychoactive?" should prompt you that it pertains to other species, not its parts. "are all dogs aggressive?" and your response would sound like, "Your question is a bit tricky though (sounding smart, eh?), well the straoght answer would be yes but if you're asking me if every bit or part of it is aggressive, then the answer is no"... it never crossed to your mind that maybe perhaps there are other possible species? that proves my hunch that most prohibitionist rely on false information in the past rather than explore the pros and cons of the plant.

[noy]

1. you are arguing in circles, repetition does not give it any more merit. Have you even bothered to look up 2015 studies? if Dr. Sanjay Gupta said it, would that make any difference? you are now deviating from the main argument. ad hominem bro. it is a very senseless point, why i never experienced psychotic drugs, but i was conducting health teachings to the significant others of my patients. i have never taken nitroglycerin, but i conducted health teachings on that as well. do you mean to say, nursing students must first experience each medication before they can impart knowledge on it or do they base it on literature? should this be even be spelled out to anyone which is pretty obvious? directly answering that senseless question would be dignifying it.

tua ra, so wa pa diay ka kasulay maski yop2x lang? ..hehehe
so how sure are you that you know everything there is about pot addiction?
uu lage kahibaw ka sa pros and cons sa butang kahibaw ka sa detalye because you've studied about it pero wa ka kasuway..
Yes a surgeon doesn't have to experience appendicitis to perform appendectomy on a patient.. pero you have to admit, mas kahibaw jud tong mga doctor nga naka perform na compared with noobs...point is, experience matters bro..ingun pa nila experience is the best teacher..heheheh..mekaniko nako sa auto ay way eskewla2x pero pildi ang taga casa...hehehehe

2. so you talked as if cannabis is so addictive, then shouldnt they be incapable of escaping cannabis addictiveness? or that just proves the studies we presented that only 9% dependency, not even addiction. isnt it convenient for you to just dismiss their non addiction as easily as that. take note, you have been repeating cannabis has a high risk of addiction when even negative studies on cannabis admit it is by far least addictive. can you put a quantitative figure on your false assumption?

LOL dependence and addiction are synonymous man gud when it comes to substance abuse..hehehe
"Research suggests that about 1 in 11 users becomes addicted to marijuana (Anthony, 1994; Lopez-Quintero 2011).This number increases among those who start as teens (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent) (Hall, 2009a; Hall, 2009b)."
source: DrugFacts: Marijuana | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
sige, butang ta lang ug ma legalize ang recreational use for Marijuana sa Pinas with the stats above as our basis
and suppose everyone in the country would start smoking pot..so from the Philippine's total population of 98.39 million, you'll have 8.9 million pinoys "dependent" on pot.. ayos ra na para nimu? pag sure oi..

3."people in this forum..." should have been pbvious. i read about blindspots,, but this is ridiculous.

aw ayaw nag apila ang ubang tao brad kay kitang duha man nag istorya...wrong number gihapun ka..Lol

4. you are an idiot. the question "are all cannabis psychoactive?" should prompt you that it pertains to other species, not its parts. "are all dogs aggressive?" and your response would sound like, "Your question is a bit tricky though (sounding smart, eh?), well the straoght answer would be yes but if you're asking me if every bit or part of it is aggressive, then the answer is no"... it never crossed to your mind that maybe perhaps there are other possible species? that proves my hunch that most prohibitionist rely on false information in the past rather than explore the pros and cons of the plant.

Idiot ko? aw kana muy ad hominem..hehehe
murag na high blood naman ka bro...hehehe relax, murag kinahanglan na ka ug weed..hehehehe siguradoa lang nga di ka maapil sa 9%..
mao btaw nga ang straight answer sa imung question nga "are all cannabis psychoactive" YES akong tubag...sativa, indica ug hybrid or unsa pa na diha...pwede na hithiton tanan ug dunay epekto sa utok..although lahi2x na sila ug purpose ang usa ana pang downers while ang isa kay pang pa creative kunohay(short term effects lang na tanan)..
...pero ako lang pud gi klaro nga di tanang parte sa usa ka cannabis plant kay psychoactive... ok na? naa kay lighter? ato na nang dabdaban hehehehehe..

[Rainerius]

Please legalize Marijuana, I think Shabu is legalized naman gani kay rampant man kaayo hahaha. Usik2x lang ko bayad og tax wala silbe atong goberno kawat ra hibaw-an.

[BolABug]

Excuse lang moagi sa ang news
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/cont...157532312.html..

legalize MJ.. I'm not into it but I weight the positive effects more than the negative..
FCK shabu and its highness

[30121895]

Asa atoh? Ang MJ, cough syrup, meth or MDMA?



so to wrap it up, since it depends on the user's behavior, and given that legalizing cannabis could give easier access to everyone including teens perhaps.. what effect or result do we think could it possibly give?




I couldn't agree more

Kanang tanan imung ge mention @Wynna na suwayan na nimu? haha


Btw mao ney epekto kung e street legal ne siya

So what we smoke weed?
We’re just having fun
We don’t care who sees
So what we go out?
That’s how it's supposed to be
Living young and wild and free

Para naku legal lng ne siya para sa medisina sa naay sakit. Pero og nangeta sakit sa utok bawal lng jd gehapon ne

[emow]

tua ra, so wa pa diay ka kasulay maski yop2x lang? ..hehehe
so how sure are you that you know everything there is about pot addiction?
uu lage kahibaw ka sa pros and cons sa butang kahibaw ka sa detalye because you've studied about it pero wa ka kasuway..
Yes a surgeon doesn't have to experience appendicitis to perform appendectomy on a patient.. pero you have to admit, mas kahibaw jud tong mga doctor nga naka perform na compared with noobs...point is, experience matters bro..ingun pa nila experience is the best teacher..heheheh..mekaniko nako sa auto ay way eskewla2x pero pildi ang taga casa...hehehehe

LOL dependence and addiction are synonymous man gud when it comes to substance abuse..hehehe
"Research suggests that about 1 in 11 users becomes addicted to marijuana (Anthony, 1994; Lopez-Quintero 2011).This number increases among those who start as teens (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent) (Hall, 2009a; Hall, 2009b)."
source: DrugFacts: Marijuana | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
sige, butang ta lang ug ma legalize ang recreational use for Marijuana sa Pinas with the stats above as our basis
and suppose everyone in the country would start smoking pot..so from the Philippine's total population of 98.39 million, you'll have 8.9 million pinoys "dependent" on pot.. ayos ra na para nimu? pag sure oi..

aw ayaw nag apila ang ubang tao brad kay kitang duha man nag istorya...wrong number gihapun ka..Lol

Idiot ko? aw kana muy ad hominem..hehehe
murag na high blood naman ka bro...hehehe relax, murag kinahanglan na ka ug weed..hehehehe siguradoa lang nga di ka maapil sa 9%..
mao btaw nga ang straight answer sa imung question nga "are all cannabis psychoactive" YES akong tubag...sativa, indica ug hybrid or unsa pa na diha...pwede na hithiton tanan ug dunay epekto sa utok..although lahi2x na sila ug purpose ang usa ana pang downers while ang isa kay pang pa creative kunohay(short term effects lang na tanan)..
...pero ako lang pud gi klaro nga di tanang parte sa usa ka cannabis plant kay psychoactive... ok na? naa kay lighter? ato na nang dabdaban hehehehehe..

1. wow, following through with the red herring argument. splendidly stupid.
As george carlin warned, never argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level then beat you down with experience.

2. awww, he thinks there is no distinction and makes fun of my correct statement. yes, there can be confusion with addiction and dependence but to conclude that they are synonymous is not accurate by any measure. Addiction vs Physical Dependence - Important distinction. read and be aware. your ignorance is forgivable.

3. wow, you used NIDA? you can show it to slabs regarding cannabis medicinal use... okay, now we have indeed established the 9% as factual, since you posted a NIDA link. does the figure 9% qualify to what you repeatedly said as highly addictive than alcohol? why dont you search for alcohol addiction rate in NIDA and compare it with cannabis? heads up, it will direct you to another Federal Agency which deals with alcohol alone. oops, what does that imply? alcohol is far more widespread and problematic.

4. this is a forum. ( dude, are you really pettyfogging the discussion?)

5. "mao btaw nga ang straight answer sa imung question nga "are all cannabis psychoactive" YES akong tubag...sativa, indica ug hybrid or unsa pa na diha...pwede na hithiton tanan ug dunay epekto sa utok..although lahi2x na sila ug purpose ang usa ana pang downers while ang isa kay pang pa creative kunohay(short term effects lang na tanan).."
- this is just being deliberately stupid. you will find out why, as you have mentioned Cannabis Sativa, try exploring on that info. you'll feel stupid for making generalizing claims. Canada and UK at least made a clear distinction.

[emow]

i was an unapologetic cannabis prohibitionist until 2010. i was on the other side of the fence, bashing the pro cannbis side with unrelenting fervor. all my life, i was educated that cannabis is an absolute bad, in fact my nursing education reinforced that knowledge, and only the negative side of it was imparted. i have never heard of other potential for cannabis. its like the moon (in a sense), we only see one side therefore the other side is a mystery. its dark and unfamiliar which conjures a negative perception on what lies the other side.

as i accumulate evidences against cannabis, i slowly stumbled resource upon resource on the positive side of cannabis. Former texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul's statements regarding cannabis became the spark that humbled me to admit, i may have not considered all sides, and the courage to dig deeper. it was shocking. gradually, scientific studies are piling up, showing the other side. before, most were anecdotals and conjectures, but eventually independent scientific studies followed. the positive results are being replicated from one country to another. and eventually, mainstream media have to shift gears.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Mehmet Oz, and Dr. Richard Bresser, doctors by profession and tv personalities as well, all were firm cannabis prohibitionists. just imagine what it took for them to admit they were wrong in front of their thousands or millions of viewers. you can check online. they have put their reputations on the line, and they were very accomplished doctors who have everything to lose.

we can no longer be dismissive about cannabis, at the very least, listen to the other side. and there is so much more to it. Major automobile companies are shifting towards cannabis based plastic, BMW did it already. cannabis is not solely for recreation (industrial hemp excluded) or medication. it has thousands of uses.

the argument doesnt only stop on Risk vs Benefits angle. we have yet to tackle the Law Enforcement angle (considering former men of the law, like US Judge Young's case in 1988,speaking out against prohibition of ALL drugs and not only cannabis), Economics angle (taking note of famous economists as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and other personalities such as george washington, thomas jefferson upto modern contemporaries as Walter williams) and the more philosophical "Right to Liberty - Personal responsibility" (taking us as far as Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, thomas jefferson etc..)angle. more of these in upcoming posts.

[salbahis]

the possibility of abuse argument is so common for all pro prohibitionist, even in countries that are contemplating legalization, so saying that pinoys are abusers by nature doesnt make us any unique.

This phobia is unwarranted. why? consider the pbvious. alcphol is more addictive than cannabis. alcohol is consumed almost anywhere openly. do you ever felt yourself in danger in all situations where so,ebody is consuming alcohol?

and another point, still people fail to differentiate the different types of cannabis, from the psychoactive to nonpsychoactive. there are cannabis species that will satisfy your phobia from drug induced psychosis, even if it is rare with cannabis(see my previous posts). What the phuck people?

we are not abuser by nature, certainly not... but we are too undiscipline and most of us are stupid to comprehend, oppurtinista... hence legalizing it for general public consumption is kinda stupid... im not against in legalizing... only when our society is discipline enough... and please stop using US as a sample or telling us what good it do, cause we all know about it already and we are not americans nor whachamacallit... and we also know the bad things it do also... if you want to lobby the legalization of this take it to the congress or take it to the court...

the argument on medical advantage is acceptable but legalizing it across the board simply not acceptable... it simply fckin stupid... who ever wants that is also a fckin stupid and a m0ron... let's face it.... our society is still full with undiscipline and stupid fkcin m0rons... until we sort this first... legalizing it across the board is still a stupidiest idea EVER....