FDA & DEA

What is the (dirty) connections of this two offices?
Does FDA decide and DEA enforces or which one of these two have a bigger (criminal) authority?
Is there any conspiracies known about these thugs?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fQwwGPiyW9M
youtube.com/watch?v=Y5t2tejz8XM
youtube.com/watch?v=IxT40c3vCJI
fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm194879.htm
quora.com/Shouldnt-the-federal-Food-Drug-Administration-FDA-be-the-agency-in-charge-of-determining-the-scheduling-of-controlled-substances-according-to-the-Controlled-Substances-Act-rather-than-the-U-S-Drug-Enforcement-Agency-DEA
youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo
higherperspectives.com/there-are-now-100-scientific-studies-that-prove-cannabis-cures-cancer-1429984852.html
youtube.com/watch?v=8_mD6_oFpc0
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1576089
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20090845
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616322
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14640910
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19480992
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25069049
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753356
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18199524
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115947
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454482
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130702
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19457575
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615640
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931597
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18438336
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387516
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15453094
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19509271
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546271
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936228
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337199
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19609004
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_anointing_oil
youtube.com/watch?v=Ktlmmx8DiXc
twitter.com/real_peer_rev
google.ca/patents/US6630507
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ethiopia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
youtube.com/watch?v=NSGmKB8sVuQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>DUDE WEED LMAO
Could weedposters just fuck off with their bullshit?

NO
youtube.com/watch?v=fQwwGPiyW9M
youtube.com/watch?v=Y5t2tejz8XM

So like how high do you get?

three hits and that's it's

You don't get high from the oil

It's not culinary oil (which is made of seeds)
but the bud and leaves extract (which is illegal to produce even if you think it's legalised)
just as these guys said:
youtube.com/watch?v=IxT40c3vCJI
big conspiracy. huge.

ah, fuck you buddies, I found it myself:

fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm194879.htm
(it tells that fda controls "drugs of abuse" but that chapter only tells of dea instead)

But this links clarifies it:
quora.com/Shouldnt-the-federal-Food-Drug-Administration-FDA-be-the-agency-in-charge-of-determining-the-scheduling-of-controlled-substances-according-to-the-Controlled-Substances-Act-rather-than-the-U-S-Drug-Enforcement-Agency-DEA

Former NORML director Jon Gettman's essay Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition describes the DEA as fall guys for the real decision-makers, i.e. HHS. "Scheduling is based on scientific analysis, not DEA policy or preference. They hide the evaluations from public critique to obscure this fact, and to make sure that criticism of scheduling decisions falls on DEA and not HHS. This process allows HHS to escape public accountability for their decisions. They are not scientists at DEA. HHS findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on DEA. So it is fairly clear who's in control of this process - HHS is."

youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo
watch this video and tell me that what they're trying to say isnt bullshit.

Easier more legal additional cancer therapy:

intermittent fasting 20:4 warrior 23:1/One Meal A Day
Ketogenic diet, nutritional (85-90%fat, 7% protein, 3% carbs)
300 minutes of cardio daily
Omega-3 DHA/EPA 2000mg of each daily
600mg ALA
Metformin
DCA

>posts video that says weed cures cancer
>posts video that says what if weed can cure cancer?
fucking wew lad

300min exercise weekly*
exogenous ketones may also help

peer reviewed study if you please

Weed doesn't cure cancer faggot. THC has killed cancer cells invitro (outside the body) in experiments but it doesn't stop cancer in the body.

First video is made by practitioners
The second video is made by theorists
Let me post some collection of pubmed articles (if you know what it is)
higherperspectives.com/there-are-now-100-scientific-studies-that-prove-cannabis-cures-cancer-1429984852.html

higherperspectives.com/there-are-now-100-scientific-studies-that-prove-cannabis-cures-cancer-1429984852.html

What's a "dis-ease"?

prove that it doesn't

And you know this because....
It works by boosting the immune system, so I wonder how it could work in vitro.

But you better tell me why lsd and weed are in Schedule I if they DO HAVE MEDICINAL VALUE - doesn't it ring a "corruption" bell?

liberalism

>t. delusional fucks thinking people actually click their bullshit links

keep on sleeping, your governments love you
youtube.com/watch?v=8_mD6_oFpc0

I am sure that 'highperspectives' has quite the following, but I didn't ask for an article talking about scientific studies, I asked for a peer reviewed study. I am a grad student, I read academic articles for my quasi-job. if someone could prove, in a reproducible way, that weed cures cancer academia would eat it up because they are so fucking liberal.

click the link, senpai, there's a list of pubmed articles too big for me to copy paste in few pieces

THATS WONDERFUL

now shoe me one example of it actually working with even stage 1 cancer

and it must be in a clinical setting

>60 grams oil cures cancer 10 grams a tube
>7 tubes
>????
>profit

Cannabis kills tumor cells

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1576089
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20090845
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616322
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14640910
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19480992
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
Uterine, testicular, and pancreatic cancers

cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645
Brain cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
Mouth and throat cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
Breast cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
Lung cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25069049
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
Prostate cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753356
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
Blood cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
Skin cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284

Liver cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304
Cannabis cancer cures (general)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18199524
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
Cancers of the head and neck

ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494
Cholangiocarcinoma cancer

ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115947
Leukemia

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454482
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532

Cannabis partially/fully induced cancer cell death

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130702
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19457575
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615640
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931597
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18438336
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387516
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15453094
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
Translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19509271
Lymphoma

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546271
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936228
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337199
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19609004

check it out my dude, when the first study's abstract says

>although the mechanism of its pharmacological effects remains to be clarified.

that is academic speak for "we don't know why the fuck that happened but it could have been the variable we tested for"

that took all of 5 seconds. that doesn't mean the study is bad, by the way, it just means that 'highperspectives' has no fucking clue what the scientific method is. your primary source is very dubious at best if their first article is mis-categorized like this, and the inability of marijuana enthusiasts to bridge the gap into academic circles, despite the interest by academia, will continue to fuck you over.

in laymen speak: get good you stupid pot head and learn about the shit you are trying to peddle.

Cannabis kills cancer cells

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
Melanoma

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
Thyroid carcinoma

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
Colon cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
Intestinal inflammation and cancer

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
Cannabinoids in health and disease

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
Cannabis inhibits cancer cell invasion

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218

Do you need it cured or explained?

Sounds like enough to me.

FFS
*show

listen you dumb nigger, if you don't know the mechanism you can't prove shit. there is guaranteed to be lurking 3rd variables in these studies and that is why the studies ADMIT IT. there are associative studies and you are so fucking stupid that you must be high right now.

you know what else kills cancer cells? Ethanol. If you take cancer cells, put them in a tube and pour ethanol on them they die. guess drinking liquor kills cancer. whelp just drink alcohol your cancer problems are gone!

you are a joke.

about the first movie:
I spoke to some high-rank laboratory looking for the cure for cancer.
And I asked them "what if you find that the cure already exists and was invented by some other guy, long time ago, and thus it can't be panented?"
And you know what the answer was?
"How can I make money on it then? My investors want to make money"
So they don't even fucking care about curing this shit - all they care is to milk some money out of you!
You don't believe me? You go and ask some specialist in the field yourself.

Information doesn't count when it's put in a video.

first you tell me why such a study never was made in spite of all those peer-reviewed articles

and why exactly do you need clinical conditions? I was told it's $15 000 per patient (which supports the image above)

Prepare to have your mind blown.

The
"Holy anointing oil"
of the Israelites, the Hebrews of the Bible ( yes the Word of God), in the Tabernacle and of the High priest and (his very ordination even) was a mixture that included cannabis:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_anointing_oil

If you already have cancer, sure why the fuck not? Meanwhile fuck off with your degeneracy.

>It can't be true

im a skeptic on your side
i think

though i believe i am more hopeful than you are

>and why exactly do you need clinical conditions?

so it is scientifically valid, and not "homeopathy" level anecdotal nothing-ness and here-say horseshit

You can still get a drug approved without a clear MoA, fyi.

>you don't know the mechanism
The mechanism is well known, if you tried to read what I brought you instead of protecting your indoctrinated pov, you'd find about cb1 & cb2 receptors and what they do.

>Cannabis kills tumor cells
So does poison, hence chemo.
Faggot.

DUDE WEED BRO

IT MAKES YOU SMARTER AND STRONGER LOL, IT ALSO CURSE AIDS AND CANCER LMAO. GET LIT NIGGA

I used both salt forms of dichloracetate to keep 2 dogs in stasis for 10 years from aggressive mast cell tumours....coupled with liposomes carrying reduced glutathione and curcuminoids. Just tricky to find potent levels without out limb weakness and dis-coordination.

excerpt:

the ingredients

*Pure myrrh (מר דרור mar deror) 500 shekels (about 6 kg)

*Sweet cinnamon (קינמון בשם kinnemon besem) 250 shekels (about 3 kg)

*Kaneh bosem (קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם kaneh bosm) 250 shekels (about 3 kg)

*Cassia (קדה kiddah) 500 shekels (about 6 kg)

*Olive oil (שמן זית shemen zayit) one hin (about 5 quarts according to Adam Clarke; about 4 liters according to Shiurei Torah, 7 liters according to the Chazon Ish)

This anointing oil was absolutely sacred and consecrated for a specific set of most Holy purposes ONLY and was not be made, let alone used, by any other/commoner of Israel(or anyone else) on pain of death by God

>Father is dying from MS
>Treatments aren't doing anything
>Has started falling into "alternative cures"
>Watch as he switches from one placebo to another trying to find some sort of panacea

are you hard of thinking?

Poisonous cure > non-poison.

OP owned

If you read the article yourself you would see in the abstract the researchers say they don't know the mechanism.

but if you know it please explain it to me and show me (1) peer reviewed article (could even be your own experiment) corroborating this.

I actually know of that, but thanks for the link anyway.
Most probably that's one of the first reasons it's made illegal in the first place.

Tell him to seek Christ, for is nothing else his best CHANCE at life, not now but later and everlasting.

Muh peer review: youtube.com/watch?v=Ktlmmx8DiXc

I just... my mind swims & delights at the knowledge that the Almighty revered cannabis.....

yet i have never partaken of it

So do I just take it all at once? And do I have to wait until I get the cancer, or could I do it as a preventive?

I brought you a little bit more than just one article.
Keep on digging or fuck off.

if you don't like western traditions like empiricism you can fuck right off to nigger land faggot.

>peer review is so bad, its holding us back!

then peddle your snake oil to niggers you witch doctor

Try to get him cannabis oil. It works on pretty much everything, even though that reality hurts people's feelings. Watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo

Marihuana is literally poison too.
Proven to affect brain receptors and also increase risk of schizophrenia.

>if you don't like western traditions like empiricism you can fuck right off to nigger land faggot.
Funny you should say that because peer review has proved repeatedly that both niggers and faggots are in fact superior: twitter.com/real_peer_rev

What do you mean "to stone" means?
If your brother made some bad shit, would you kill him with a stone or would you make him high and ask him dude, wtf

>literally poison
>no known fatal dose

USA govt holds the patent for cannaboids as neuroprotectants

google.ca/patents/US6630507

>all poison is lethal
I'm so sorry user, didn't know I was talking to someone with your condition.

you are too high to get what I am saying. 1: the first article was misrepresented. 2: several others I clicked on were as well. 3: you don't know the mechanism, you are lying. 4: you will never convince people at large that cannabis cures cancer (even if it did) by being an idiot. if you care about it so much maybe invest time in verifying and learning the data instead of getting high. 5: if you like being high just admit you like being high. at least alcoholics don't argue that their drug of choice is a miracle cure for everything.

"let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone"

ALL human-on-human corporal/capital punishments for sin were cast away and done with when Christ died on the cross.

...and still considers it schedule1

can any of you explain that?

poi·son
ˈpoiz(ə)n/
noun
noun: poison; plural noun: poisons

1.
a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
synonyms: toxin, toxicant, venom; archaicbane
"a deadly poison"

Might as well take a vacation to Poland and have CCSVI done. Then huge amounts of liposomal glutathione daily and try to dial in a safe therapeutic level of 6-Aminohexanoic acid. .

Did you read what you posted?
>causing the illness or
>OR
>O R death
Being deathly is not necessary to be considered poison.

rastafarians dare to claim that jews stole (and bastardized) their teaching (and Jesus is only a consequence of that)
And also dead sea scrolls reveal that bible is about consumption of psychedelic substances and describing what was seen.

social sciences are a joke for more reasons that I care to get into right now, the most glaringly obvious one is that their is no repeatability in their studies. they are a laughing stock, and I am happy they are being laughed at. That is peer review WORKING.

Almost anything then, going by your extremely broad definition, could be deemed poison.

they are barely even court jesters when viewed in the whole of civilization

The fact that they can't be replicated doesn't stop the studies from being published and funded. Therefore throwing into question the notion that peer review is the gold standard you've characterized it as.

I will never get my Uncercumsizer cream approved by the Jewish run FDA.

it is as simple as this

poisons/toxins are substances that cause damage/harm at ANY dose, down to one molecule of a substance in question

a distinction is made though between those which damage transiently, and those which damage in permanence

No man just no.but yea weed is all over the bible

>extremely broad definition
It's just the definition of poison, potfag.
And the very reason marihuana is used recreationally is its poisonous nature.

Is this man being damaged?: youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo

That's what you were taught to think
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ethiopia

>And the very reason marihuana is used recreationally is its poisonous nature.

?????

Ok jeff its time for you to take your pills and go to bed

>potfag
"It can't be true it just can't!"

if it is mairjuanna then my answer is:

i am unaware of any harm that it causes

and we are talking chemistry here, mind you, nothing else

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ethiopia

now you are attempting to confused ethiopians with followers of ras tafari

can you stop being a literal fucking retard?

...

You can kill tumors with alcohol that doesn't mean drinking a beer is going to cure your cancer.

peer review isn't the problem with this case, the problem is that the 'social sciences' aren't actually sciences. I get the feeling that you don't understand the function of these things, I'll explain it a bit for you. What peer review attempts to do, in a general way, is to make sure that the methods of a particular field of study are sound, followed (if sound) and improved. Peer review is NOT about empiricism. Science is about empiricism, and as such it follows that peer review in the sciences is then about empiricism.

Consider this: there are peer reviewed journals for the arts, and these function completely well without any interest in repeatability - the notion is absurd because in that field repeatability is not applicable. In language arts you have peer review for thesis on Shakespeare and whatever else. In math you have peer review as well, but pure mathematics is not interested in empiricism either, yet those journals function.

You see the different academic fields have their own methods. The problem is that the 'social sciences' are not actually sciences. As a scientist I care just as much about what peer reviewed social science articles publish as I do about Shakespeare articles. There is more I could talk about, but I can only post so much text per post.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

you can also kill them with fire and gamma radiation

Poison is a defense mechanism used to defer an attacker.
Venom is an Offensive mechanism used for catching prey.
Nectar is used to lure prey (Predatory plants ONLY) or to lure pollinators.
Since the drug is coming from the plants flower and is the reason its cultivated, I'd say its a nectar.

The sweet nectar of free thought, Smoke bowls while watching the greatest story ever told.
That's how you change the normies.

watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=fQwwGPiyW9M (and then look for more videos with that guy, he explains further details. For example, it should be high in THC (not cbd, as they try to fool us again)
youtube.com/watch?v=NSGmKB8sVuQ

you could also use polio, inject able edited polio viruses into tumors they will eat the tumor eventually curing it.

Not even a pot smoker but you sound like a literal 70 year old retard brainwashed into thinking certain things are bad

if you havent realized, our whole society is ran off of money. why wouldnt they want to make money in a capitalistic society?

I don't see any argument here.
Marihuana is poisonous, the same way is alcohol, nicotine and another shitload of substances.
Point is, just because it affect cancer cells positively doesn't mean it's a miraculous god-send method of curing all illnesses. Nor it means that's completely safe to consume or that it has no contraindications as you fags keep trying to suggest.

literally 4:20

Wow its almost as if people need money to live their life and is therefore an incentive