Commsvet11

Very interesting, looks like they are on their way medically.

You would have to have FDA approval, along with the DEA It would be hard, but I’m sure somebody is willing to do it.

It may not possess addictives, but it sure does seem hard for people to just quit, for example football players that get paid millions of dollars and still can’t pass a drug test.

This is such a good point. When they say it’s natural, so is tobacco, poppy plants, foxglove plant. When they do these studies for medical use, are they keeping track of the genetic strains of these plants? Will the effective doses really be more theuraputic when it’s all said and done? I almost hate to say it but every time I see a study it reminds me of reading a homeopathic article

For a drug to be used in a medical treatment to be effective it has to have maximum theauraputic benefits with minimum adverse side effects. A route of administration is another factor the fastest being IV administration. Oral in particular pill form is a popular one. So if the FDA one day wants to approve marijuana for medical treatment, you all realize you won’t be smoking it right? It would be probably be in pill form. My point is if you want legalize it for recreational drug use go for it, but if all you want to do is smoke it, medical angle might backfire.

So let’s say Mr. Barnett does dismisses his negative writers. He hires new ones, would the message change? Is is it the writer or is it your bias as a fan? Does a fan ever want to hear the negativity of their favorite team? I live in Pittsburgh, you would think there wouldn’t be any criticism or negative vibes because of their success, but you would be wrong, especially after a loss. We have a unique situation where someone has reached out and included fan columns, you want to voice your positive angle do so. Or is it just easier to complain about writers?

The poster had a good point that football wasn’t invented for children, I see their point and it makes sense. We we have adopted it as part of our culture, and their view is children play football as they would playing doctor. To some people football is more than a game and I can respect that view. I also get the annoyance of drunk rowdy fans, but rowdy fans are part of the live game experience, Could you imagine watching a steeler game without seeing those terrible towels?

Thats a good point, I just always associated football as a kids game because of backyard football when I was 10, or a kid receiving a football for a Christmas present. But it thinking it through, I also had an archery set and .22 when I was 12 and those things are not really for kids either.

If I get paid to play chutes in ladders with a bunch of other guys in their 20’s and 30’s in a highly competitive environment does chutes and ladders stop being a kids game?

So peewee football doesn’t exist? And your age limit pretty much proved my point, your considered old past your thirties in the NFL, the NFL is nothing but grown men yes, but they are young men and are playing a game they played when they were in single digits in age.

Well if we all want to be adults all the time maybe we should get rid of the NFL, it is after a kids game.

Seriously! Mad at grown folks acting juvenile at a venue where grown men get paid millions of dollars to play a..........juvenile game.

What is a qualified football fan? I have my phone out to check the other scores and my fantasy, and to take pictures. I stand up and cheer when plays are made, I don’t drink at the stadium, but I know full well if there is alcohol sold at a function there will be those who drink too much. If if you wish to avoid these things perhaps it’s best you stay home.

I’m sorry maybe it’s me, but isn’t that part of the fan atmosphere?

Jim and Pam? More like Micheal Scott and Jane-Levinson-Gould!

I don’t think a republic works without identity politics. We elect representatives to speak for us, so of course these elected representatives have the constitutes best interests in mind. Of course it is never perfect, but if a candidate comes close enough then that candidate will win. Trump has an interesting case, you have Trump supporters and Trump voters, the latter voting the lesser of two evils, it is just my opinion but that is how Trump won.

Fear of social significance dwindling is not a new issue, for example White Irish immigrants were discriminated against as well as Italians, and even poles, they lived in their ghettos, and assimilated as time went on. The same thing will happen again, if anything the worry is those who won’t assimilate. What is happening here is an idea old as time, is repackaged and sold to the gullible, to paint trump voters in a bad light. It doesn’t matter the demographic, people will still resist change at first, but eventually assimilation takes hold.

Yes, they did their job, now it’s time to evaluate if they did a GOOD job. That being said I am strangely comfortable with the pick, and I don’t know why, maybe it’s the optimistism, anybody else have that gut feeling you can’t explain?

You should probably rethink your ideology if high school teenagers make you think they have more sense than adults who actually live in the real world. This is is their first experience of the real world. Violence, in particular and so far they are not taking it well.

I live 15 minutes south of the city of Pittsburgh, I think the major thing is republicans who work for unions. Lamb was endorsed by the steel unions, so the question becomes do those republicans bite the hand that feeds them just to vote party lines?

There are still fat kids in the military, let’s not kid ourselves. I guess my biggest question is after the military most of my buddies became cops or prison guards, how do you know who was and wasn’t in the military,

Uh weapons were confiscated during the Japanese internment camp, and that was done out of an EMOTIONAL response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It should never happened but FDR, a LIBERAL made it so. And you clearly do not understand the second amendment, it is for individuals.

Well the reason they say that it is an overreach is the 2nd amendment is made so civilians keep the government from being tryancial. It’s easy to fight a military when you invade, there is vehicles, encampments and easy to ID uniforms, now armed civilians on the other hand, very much harder. As for your 6000 year old mythos, that is simply religious expression. No matter how crazy it sounds, religious beliefs have a say, the freedom to practice their religion without government intrusion is like the 2nd amendment written in stone in the first amendment.So people naturally elect those who share beliefs to represent them. You are free to your beliefs, they are modern and you care for society we live in, I appreciate that, but for changes you personally want to see, gun control, religious folks stance on medical stances dissmissed, that violates the first and second amendment rights, that just can’t happen.

I’ll tell you what as I said earlier in the thread, I am fine with abortions being legal, so long as there is an option for men to opt out of child support during a pregnancy, if he doesn’t want the responsibility of being a father. That’s fair isn’t it? Equality. I’ll even allow it rape and medical cases.

Or how about you come to the realization that these problems are here to stay, that gun control is NOT the solution, if you ban something, it doesn’t go away, the black market will provide it, such a simple concept doesn’t register with you people. So you can’t ban guns, what’s your other solution? Because you people don’t register it’s impossible to ban guns, your argument is fantasy, and should be dismissed. Now onto your take on medical care, “ “I don’t think the government has a place to say what I do with my medical care, especially when it comes to birth control and whether I produce a human life" Cool outside person, I agree, but uh PP get federally funds, and uh democrats passed a government mandate on health insurance so actually your side kinda does want government to have a say.