I never said nor implied that the pain relief was favorable to narcotics, you imbecile. I responded to your fallacious claim that they didn't affect "real pain."

Those and dozens of others likewise indicate that cannabinoids are effective for pain relief.

But why don't you, who has no training or education in this subject, tell me more about what I don't know, since you are a veritable font of pharmacology.

Perhaps you should adopt your own trope of personal responsibility and put some effort into improving your reading comprehension. Or you could just lie, and spin it off.
[Reply]

welp, this thread is toast.
[Reply]

This.

Good goo...
[Reply]

No, no, stevie, . . . surely if Prince's life had any meaning, it was to give Hamas and Patteau something to argue about.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

I didn't make that fallacious claim, moron. After your first, response, I reread my post and acknowledged that if you took that one sentence in isolation it could sound like I was making the fallacious claim you're worked up about, and then I explained that that wasn't my point. After that, your confusion is all on you. The reading comprehension issue appears to be yours.

If you're going to pick an argument with me, you're going to have to do it on a point I've made, not a point you want me to make.
[Reply]

You made a point that it wasn't for real pain. You can't speak to what real pain is, you don't know how the pathways operate, and you don't know about the science demonstrating that it is effective for many types of analgesia, up to and including chronic pain and cancer-related-pain.

You've demonstrated your ignorance time and again and bent over asking someone to shove a knowledge dick up your ass. You got it, now move along.
[Reply]

This seems to be the key part of your confusion.

And yet, you've admitted that I'm right (about the actual point I made).
[Reply]

You didn't make a point. You invented a narrative about what real pain is that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, and you keep trying to move the goalposts as a consequence.
[Reply]

Hey, did you guys hear Prince died from opioid overdose?
[Reply]

Yeah, I heard they found him in an elevator with a knowledge dick up his ass.
[Reply]

He should have at least tried cannabinoids for the pain. Assuming the pain wasn't too real, of course.
[Reply]

I have a feeling Prince tried plenty of cannabinoids over his career.

For the pain, of course.
[Reply]

My goalpost hasn't moved at all. It's your "understanding" that's been adrift. I'm sorry, I won't let you put an argument I didn't make in my mouth.
[Reply]

I wouldn't even call it an argument. I'd call it talking out of your ass and not having the gumption to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have never claimed that a synthetic opioid, like fentanyl, would provide inferior reduction in acute pain. What I did point out to you is that cannabinoids are quite useful for a variety of pain types, at which point you inferred I was a "NORML-type weed out."

Of course, it's probably unfair of me to hold you responsible for the definitions of the claims that you use.

Sativex is one such compound that has demonstrated better response for pain relief in certain types of cancer than opioids for chronic pain sufferers.

In fact, opioids demonstrate decreased efficacy with continued use, and there is a continued search for compounds that work better to treat chronic pain. A significant amount of literature suggests that cannabinoids can provide safer pain relief than opioids.

But, since chronic pain doesn't meet your definition of real pain, apparently this research is bunk since there are, according to you, "no scientific studies that support this point of view," you know, aside from the ones I provided and the dozens of others available through a MEDLINE search.

But hey, I've got some elective credit I still need to take, so why don't you let me know when your course on pharmacotherapy meets so I can work it into my schedule.
[Reply]