Bob in Mich

You are one ignorant fool. Funny that you are so proud of your ignorance. Thanks for the demo

They have lesser subscriptions too. I have a bare bones music only subscription. I think they just raised it to $7/month. I don't get all of the talk stations nor do I get all of the music stations but it is a good option for me. I haven't been lately but the website used to show a variety of subscription options/prices. Companies that invest a lot up front for their business and have negligible costs for additional customers, are the ones that are very willing to negotiate. If you think about the service, they have the bulk of their money spent on setting up the satellite services. An additional customer costs them next to nothing.

The only valid point you have ever made in this thread is that other plants may have healing capabilities too, and you have repeated it several times. How that invalidates the possibility that cannabis has medicinal properties is beyond me. Any explanation? If you have any other useful point to make beyond that, now is your chance, genius. We're waiting to hear all of your wisdom. Should take a good 10 seconds to share that. Go ahead...

It's clear you are a jerk. Why is the question. Care to explain how you turned into such a douche?

In the past, Gupta's specials have been focused on medical use of cannabis rather than promoting recreational (aka adult) use. I included the promo for the show in the same post as the link to 'The Exit Drug'. That video discusses the advantages of medical cannabis rather than opiates for pain management and PTSD. In my opinion, Weed 4 will likely hit upon many of the same points. CNN will likely put out a promo video but I didn't see one yet. Sanjay Gupta's prior episodes of 'Weed' deserve a great deal of credit for educating the masses on the possibilities of medical cannabis. Hopefully this new episode follows suit.

The Exit Drug - This youtube video touches upon many of the opioid and cannabinoid topics discussed in posts here. I have tried (and apparently failed with many) to explain many of these same issues. It is a worthwhile watch, especially if you know someone struggling with opioids. It is 15 minutes long. Start it and see if you find it interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w29GOehXMkg Edit: Also saw CNN advertise 'Weed 4: Pot vs Pills' for Sunday 4/29 at 8pm Eastern.

Schumer Bill Would De-schedule Cannabis Nationwide https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/huge-news-schumer-bill-would-deschedule-cannabis-nationwide In a move with huge potential implications, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, said earlier today that he plans to introduce a bill to deschedule cannabis nationwide. More powerful than decriminalization, descheduling cannabis would get the federal government out of the cannabis prohibition business altogether.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq#link/_13 From the article Preclinical studies of cannabinoids have investigated the following: Antitumor activity Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells. A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment. A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells. A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors. A review of 34 studies of cannabinoids in glioma tumor models found that all but one study showed that cannabinoids can kill cancer cells without harming normal cells. A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective.

The link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer is not nearly as strong as has been suggested. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-effects-lung-health From the article Whether smoking marijuana causes lung cancer, as cigarette smoking does, remains an open question. Marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic combustion products, including about 50 percent more benzoprene and 75 percent more benzanthracene (and more phenols, vinyl chlorides, nitrosamines, reactive oxygen species) than cigarette smoke. Because of how it is typically smoked (deeper inhale, held for longer), marijuana smoking leads to four times the deposition of tar compared to cigarette smoking. However, while a few small, uncontrolled studies have suggested that heavy, regular marijuana smoking could increase risk for respiratory cancers, well-designed population studies have failed to find an increased risk of lung cancer associated with marijuana use.

Legal Marijuana States Have Lower Opioid Use, New Studies Show https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/04/02/legal-marijuana-states-have-lower-opioid-use-new-studies-show/#208ef16c5696

Am having trouble visualizing your argument. Too bad you don't have a chart or any photos to prove your point.

Aw, you guys are sweet. Love you all too.

I was sitting here wondering how a formerly reasonable poster had changed into such a jerk and once I recalled that you mentioned Hollywood, it all just clicked. It is coke, isn't it? Of course you are not going to admit to illegal drug use on here but if you have a problem, you should set aside your 'work' here and get yourself some help. Seriously. I have seen that stuff do bad things to good people and seen it turn their minds to mush. Users are so confident and convinced that they are doing fantastic that they fail to see all the screw ups they are making. I am not a medical professional but you appear to me to be clearly manic and without a doubt, delusional too. I am dangerous for what exactly? Didn't you claim that I am just repeating the MSM narrative? If that is so and this is my platform versus the multimedia platform of the MSM, I can't imagine any person (thinking clearly) could label me as dangerous due to my PPP postings. I can imagine a sleep deprived, delusional, hyper confrontational, self proclaimed savior with a coke problem coming to that conclusion. I find it funny that we come from different angles but both want the Mueller investigation to go on until he is finished, against the wishes of many of the posters here. We also agree that if the FISA warrant process was abused, the abusers should be held accountable and improvements to the process should be made. So, although you feel compelled to insult my sources or reasoning after every post, you apparently agree with me. Brilliant, sniffles! More evidence that you are not thinking clearly. Here's another Young Turks clip from nearly a year ago - 4/4/17. I would trust this guy's opinions over yours every time. I certainly don't agree with anyone's every opinion and I am certain there are examples where they've been wrong but I trust much more of what they put out than what I have been reading from you. young turks

Too funny. They said the same about you when I had them all over to my place to hobnob. We are tight, as you must already know.

Moron, DR, have you noticed I don't ever quote you or respond to you for like a month now? That is because I view you as the wild eyed fukstick at the end of the bar. I made the mistake of making eye contact once and you have been a complete confrontational jerk since that day. Never again, you !@#$ing lunatic. Back on ignore. Out. By the way, The young Turks has a live Youtube show weeknights from 6-8pm eastern. Check it out. You'll love it.

Boy, you guys got me again. I guess there really are none. Gosh, why must I lie so much? Hmmm, well, how bout Mueller or even Mitch Cumstein for starters?

Titanic was a good movie. Knew the ending the whole time.

No, but you all just don't understand. HILLARY AND TRUMP ARE ALLIES! LOOK AT THE CHART AND THAT PICTURE AGAIN! USE YOUR HEAD! YOU ARE ALL FOOLS FOR NOT BELIEVING THIS!!! THE CHART! THE PICTURE! Go ahead, Howard. Post the chart and that Trump-Clinton picture again. I bet a couple more viewings will convince us all.

Breaking News!!! SNL takes the first 2 minutes of it's opening last night for Sessions to explain it all. Kate McKinnon does a pretty good Sessions SNL Youtube from 3/17

The coincidence is just amazing to me. So many Republicans with formerly outstanding reputations turned out to be just underhanded criminals, AFTER they got involved investigating Trump. I mean, what are the odds? 90% of Republicans support Trump. Like 95 point something percent of Republicans are honest and upstanding (PPP aside) and yet nearly every one of the appointed Republican investigators, is apparently crooked and secretly has it in for Trump. Either an amazing coincidence or might it possibly be that there are concerted efforts to smear the reputation of anyone that may be called down the road to testify against Trump? I can hear the defense attorney now, "How can we trust McCabe's testimony? We know he was fired from the FBI for lying."

This is pretty funny. I should be banned, eh? For what exactly? Disagreeing? Wasn't it just a few posts ago you talked about how tough you are? Not tough enough to read my mind searing posts though, huh?

Probably forced at gunpoint....just guessing

Well, you guys are most welcome. I had no idea you all appreciated my writing so much. I will continue....just for all of my new friends here. I tried to answer the question of why some in the Trump administration wanted to establish secret communication lines with the Kremlin POST election. Given that the proposed conspiracy PRIOR TO THE ELECTION involved tweaking the ongoing social media to more favor Trump along with strategically timing the release of hacked emails, not a lot needed to be communicated day to day. ONCE ELECTED, if a conspiracy was in place, much more back and forth was likely to happen and the administration would want to shield those conversations from US intelligence agencies. You may not like that explanation but it is clearly possible and I would say plausible. I readily admit that I don't know how things transpired and that I am speculating. I would propose that most posting against me here do not know what transpired either. They just say with conviction that they do....which is clearly just horseshit.

Good questions. I of course don't know but will speculate since you asked. The help given by the Russians to get him elected did not require a lot of day to day communication. If the campaign agreed to accept the help one time, perhaps in person, that may have been all that was needed to start the conspiracy moving. Perhaps the Don Jr Trump Tower meeting conveyed that agreement. After that, the Russians would have been doing whatever they could to help. They wouldn't need day to day guidance. After the election was won, more back and forth MIGHT have been necessary to do the Russians bidding. For instance, we don't want Mitt, how bout Rex from Exxon? Speculation to be sure but you asked.