Saturday College Football Open Thread

Last week I was 9-6. I now stand 22-18-1 (.550) on the year. Here are this week's picks:

GA Tech (-8) over NCState; Miami(OH)(+20) over Missouri; Air Force (-14) over Wyoming; USC (-22) over Washington State; Alabama (-7.5) over Arkansas; Stanford(-5) over Notre Dame; Nevada (-4) over BYU; Miss State (-1) over Georgia; Ole Miss (-2) over Fresno St.; Auburn (-2) over S. Carolina; Boise State (-18) over Oregon State; LSU (-10) over West Virginia; and Cal (+7) over Arizona.

Open Thread.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Medical Marijuana Debate In Denver Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yo BTD: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 09:47:43 AM EST
    Last winter, you responded to a comment of mine suggesting cannabis based medical preparations might be grandfathered past the FDA process if no longer blocked by the Controlled Substances Act, saying you would someday write a post on the topic. Did I miss it? If not, can I prompt you to write it?

    Amazingly (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    I am up to my elbows in FDA approval process, in particular the Grandfather and DESI issues, right now.

    I can't give you the answer to your question right now, but I will be in a position to address it shortly as I have extensive research and analysis on the FDA, the grandfather/DESI issue and related matters.

    Quick question - was cannabis commonly used as a medicine pre-1938?    


    Apparently So (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    But in the West cannabis did not come into its own as a medicine until the mid- nineteenth century. During its heyday, from 1840 to 1900, more than 100 papers were published in the Western medical literature recommending it for various illnesses and discomforts. It could almost be said that physicians of a century ago knew more about cannabis than contemporary physicians do; certainly they were more interested in exploring its therapeutic potential.
    The first Western physician to take an interest in cannabis as a medicine was WB O'Shaughnessy, a young professor at the Medical College of Calcutta, who had observed its use in India.....

    As he noted, the medical use of cannabis was already in decline by 1890. The potency of cannabis preparations was too variable, and individual responses to orally ingested cannabis seemed erratic and unpredictable. Another reason for the neglect of research on the analgesic properties of cannabis was the greatly increased use of opiates after the invention of the hypodermic syringe in the 1850s, which allowed soluble drugs to be injected for fast relief of pain; hemp products are insoluble in water and so cannot easily be administered by injection.

    Lester Grinspoon, M.D., (PDF)


    non-medical Hemp for Victory (none / 0) (#13)
    by DFLer on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    Hemp wasn't always banned in the U.S. Jamestown Colony required farmers to grow it in 1619. Even after Congress cracked down on marijuana in 1937, farmers were encouraged to grow the crop for rope, sails and parachutes during World War II's "Hemp for Victory" campaign.

    The most extensive collection (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    Marijuana Medical Papers: 1839- 1972
    Edited by Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.

    I own hardcopies of the 1936 Pharmacopeia, with suggestions as to when it's use is appropriate, and the 1935 National Formulary of the United States, which contains a recipe for Cannibis tincure.

    (Not at home now, can't transcribe.)


    Nice Reading List... (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    Another question.. (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 02:45:59 PM EST
    Has the average THC content really skyrocketed in the last couple of decades as much as some people claim it has?  

    Yes, and no. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    The DEA's "20 times stronger" claims are based on tests of stored material seized back when vs stuff they bust now.

    There's as change in how people get arrested. used to be they'd have undercovers trolling bars buying small amounts. if you had something really good, your friends would buy it all, but if a midlevel dealer was stuck with garbage, they'd end up fronting it out, eventually to the flakes who'd sell to strangers in bars.

    There was very strong stuff back when, it Thai, but it was rarely caught in the narcs nets.

    Now, much more of what's on the market is top shelf homegrown. Wider access to exotic genetics means more of the homegrown is very good.

    another change, manicuring standards. used to be much of what went out, especially the Mexican product, was not trimmed of leaves, resulting in overall lower THC content. Starting around 1978, a more sophisticated consumer base (education via High Times) began demanding a higher manicuring standard.


    I own hard copies of the (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    Dispensatory of the United States, eight edition (1849) and eleventh edition (1858). Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indicia are listed in both editions indicating that the substance produces most of the therapeutic effects of opium and may be used as a substitute; favorable reports are presented in the 8th ed, for its effects on cholera, neuralgia, rheumatism, tetanus and insanity. Available as an alcoholic extract or tincture, l/2 to l grains every 2 or so hours affects the system. Overdoses give a powerful intoxication.

    The llth ed. lists Extractum Cannabis, with properties of exhilaration, intoxication, delirious hallucinations, but with little effect on circulation. It is noted as an aphrodisiac, it increases the appetite, but, unlike  opium, does not check secretions, decrease the appetite or cause constipation. It produces a species of intoxication, vertigo and headache.  


    DADT Injunction? (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    A federal judge on Friday ordered the reinstatement of an Air Force nurse discharged from the military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forbids openly gay service members.

    U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton told a packed Tacoma, Wash., courtroom that evidence at a six-day trial showed that former Air Force Reserve Maj. Margaret Witt was an "exemplary officer" who should be "reinstated at the earliest possible moment."

    "Good flight nurses are hard to find," he said in a 15-page opinion.

    In a statement, Witt said she was proud of her career. "Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there," she said.....

    Leighton's decision in some ways echoed one from U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips in California. She ruled this month that "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional and has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services. She is now considering whether an injunction against future discharges of gay service members should be limited or imposed nationwide.


    On Sept 23, the DOJ asked (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    Judge Phillips not to grant an immediate injunction ordering that the military stop enforcing DADT. Robert Gibbs defended the filing of DOJ as being its "job to defend acts of Congress". While not an appeal, it does seem as if the DOJ will appeal.  The case before Judge Leighton was more focused on Major Witt's situation and is major blow to DADT.  It is expected that DOJ will appeal this case.  It sure seems like we are on the way to the Supreme Court with Justice Kennedy serving, essentially, as a "one-man" Court--as things now stand.

    Computers for Iraqi school kids (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:19:43 PM EST
    haven't made it to the kids yet.  U.S. taxpayer dollars.  NYT

    KUSC FM's opera show this morning (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    [all duets] included:  cat duet

    Very funny.  All meows.  Never heard it before.

    Stay classy... (none / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    ...Arizona State fans.  Hope Cal cleans your clock today.

    Or... (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    ...Oregon to be correct.  Go Ducks!

    I think you mean (none / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    Arizona fans.  

    Ugly scene there at the intersection of two teams cheering sections which easily could have escalated out of hand.  

    Go Cal (vs Ariz) today.  Another scorcher in the desert.


    Yes... (none / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    ...I did.  I get our disasters in the desert (and those AZ schools) mixed-up!

    Go Bears!


    U of M 65, Bowling Green 21 (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    And so far Pads are up 3-2 on Reds. Hope it lasts.

    Pads-Cinci nailbiter, Red Sox hose Yanks again (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ellie on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    Oh glory alleyloooooo!

    Pads walk off with it in the ninth, making their biggest fan (my favorite cuz The Pad, who's an actual Padre in the cloth-wearing, monastic, bucolic religious retreat-running sense) beatifically happy.

    But more importantly, for the second day in a row, the Red Sox just granted an even more delicious wish by serving up the Yanks like dinnah (and making my most repulsive cuz in the Bronx miserable.)

    Any day is hugely wicked awesss
    When Sawx nail stupid pinstriped Yankee ass to crawss

    (So sorry, BTD, this isn't to rub your particular nose in this, but seeing as how you're doing so well with ArmpitBall, I figured a little anti-Yank crowing wouldn't hurt.)

    For me, Yankee-hatin' has become business-like in the purest, most Republican sense: this is the time of year when I reliably fleece my rat-bastid financial "wizard" -- by trade -- Rethug cuz by disabusing his wallet of BIG BUX by luring him into late-inning BS suckah bets.

    I've also tweaked my system to perfection by not making any new bets until I've collected my winnings (from the stretch into post). It serves me well financially, by disallowing the opportunity to double down the next game and reduce the CHA-CHINNNGGG!

    It also serves me well personally because it's given me valuable insight into the proverbial limbic system-oriented GOP lizard brain:

    To uber-Repugs, making someone else miserable feels just as good as making themselves happy.

    I just wish I'd known this many years ago.


    Must admit I pay very close attention (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    to the out-of-town scoreboard when it looks like there is a chance the Yankees might lose.  Yes, I am still bitter and clinging to the '98 WS.

    hmph :( (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    gosh, all I want is some post season Yankees so I can actually view some Yankee baseball on this coast . . . you 2 are making me sad . . . {scratches Pads off of cheer list}

    Ha. You need to fork out for (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    MLB network.

    next year . . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    had too much going on this year to make it worth it. I was going to buy the NFL one now that things have calmed down, but it's only on Direct TV. {sigh} thankfully, the Jets are on SNF this week and there's the chance I'll get them during Raider games since the Raiders get blacked out 'round these parts . . .

    A friend who is a huge Yankee fan (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    (former New Yorker, natch) has the MLB HD plan and can watch the games live in HD on his iPhone.  Very impressed.

    Way to go Tigers (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 10:19:31 PM EST
    MO Tigers defeated Miami OH Redhawks 51 - 13.