Can anyone tell me where marijuana ranks as a cash crop in the state
of Texas? I’d like to know where it ranks and what other crops are
up there with it.
I’m interested in these figures in other states as well if anyone has
a list.
thanks,
steve
——————————————————————–
a yardstick for lunatics, one point of view
——————————————————————–
Thanks.
–
Steve Dyer
d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
d…@arktouros.mit.edu, d…@hstbme.mit.edu
>Can anyone tell me where marijuana ranks as a cash crop in the state
>of Texas? I’d like to know where it ranks and what other crops are
>up there with it.
>I’m interested in these figures in other states as well if anyone has
>a list.
I know that it is first in both California and Nebraska. Pobably a lot
of other places too, but I only know those ones.
(a) Are chiropractors a good alternative to GP’s?
Sure, if you’re looking for manipulative relief of back/neck pain; if you
want someone who will follow your blood pressure, immunize your children,
treat your ulcer, screen your Pap smears for cervical cancer, etc. then
you’re looking for a GP (read M.D.)
(b) Have their treatments been supported by scientific research?
Yes and no. If it works (i.e. back pain relief) then fine. But any chiro-
practor who treats asthma with diet (not uncommonly seen) is several giant
steps outside the world of what one calls "science".
(c) Is there any conflict between chiropractors and traditional medicine?
Nah. Now what would make you think a thing like that?
Joel Kirsh
Class of 9T2
University of Toronto
In article <1990Oct22.161434.25…@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>The business of chiropractors is private practice. The business of
>Schools of Chiropractic is to turn out chiropractors. All of the
>chiropractic schools are for-profit institutions. None are recipients
>of government research grants, nor do they have any interest in nor
>facilities for doing research.
I am not here to defend Chiropractic. I would just like to point out the
reason for the above. Chiropractic schools are generally unable to
obtain grant money as are virtually all institiutions which teach
"alternative" medicine. This is because the pursestrings are controlled
by folks who have no interest in seeing any advancement of "alternative"
medicine. I have already posted previously how it was that homeopathic
medicine was virtually wiped out in this country, and it wasn’t
because it doesn’t work.
> I have been treated by several chiropractors and none of them have
> ever claimed they could cure anything but back problems.
> —
> John Carey
We have a chiropractor here in Ft. Collins who operates the "Chronic
Fatigue Clinic"
Clearly aimed at those suffering from, or worried that they are suffering
from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, there are television ads promising
a "return to health." The owner/operator even got articles in the local
paper indicating that he presented a paper to a chiropractors convention
on his remarkable success at curing "chronic fatigue."
As the spouse of one who has had CFS for 5 years, I find myself gagging
in disgust at such quackery. But quackery is not exclusive to
chiropractic. Some of the "doctors" who’ve published books about CFS
have advocated carrying crystals too. (why not a pickle? A pickle
has the same electrical characteristics… and more!
Ron Miller
[lots of juicy anti-chiropractic articles...(-8 ]
One of the "standard" lines often purporting to assert the legitimacy of
chiropractic is, and I’ve heard it a million times, "…a chiropractor has
more years of medical school than an M.D." Is this true? If so, since they
reportedly don’t dissect cadavers or work in hospitals as part of their
training, what on earth do they study for all those "years and years of
training"?
Ron Morgan
osm…@emx.utexas.edu
In article <38…@ut-emx.uucp> osm…@ut-emx.uucp (rn) writes:
>One of the "standard" lines often purporting to assert the legitimacy of
>chiropractic is, and I’ve heard it a million times, "…a chiropractor has
>more years of medical school than an M.D." Is this true?
Boy, that’s a new one on me! Now, chiropractors don’t attend medical
school, at least in order to become a chiropractor, so this assertion
is just a bit difficult to read without giggling. Schools of chiropractic
generally aren’t graduate professional schools, but are undergraduate
institutions.
>If so, since they
>reportedly don’t dissect cadavers or work in hospitals as part of their
>training, what on earth do they study for all those "years and years of
>training"?
I think even the most vociferous champion of chiropractic could not claim
that s/he is in training for as long or longer than someone with an MD.
They might argue (however successfully or not) that what they study is
more important than what is studied in medical school.
–
Steve Dyer
d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
d…@arktouros.mit.edu, d…@hstbme.mit.edu
In <38…@ut-emx.uucp> osm…@ut-emx.uucp (rn) writes:
>One of the "standard" lines often purporting to assert the legitimacy of
>chiropractic is, and I’ve heard it a million times, "…a chiropractor has
>more years of medical school than an M.D." Is this true? If so, since they
Chiropractors go to chiroquacktic school.
Doctors go to medical school.
In <4…@lure.latrobe.edu.au> PSY…@lure.latrobe.edu.au writes:
>A brief question. I saw an advertisment recently for a chiropractor who claims
>that he treats things such as the common cold, asthma, headaches and many other
>things. I used to think that they just specialized in treating back complaints,
>but it seems as though they can also fill the role of a normal GP to some
>extent. A friend of mine told me that chiropractors are even taught how to
>deliver babies as part of their training!
> I would like to know (a)are chiropractors a good alternative to GP’s, (b) have
> their treatments been supported by scientific research, and (c) is their any
> conflict between chiropractors and traditional medicine?
>Michael L. ,Latrobe Uni., Melb.Aust.
I think this confusion all comes from the word "Doctor". Coming from
the Latin word for "teacher", it originally referred to a high-ranking
University type (the sort of person people now call "not a *real*
doctor"). I suppose the semantic shift happened when people needed a
word to distinguish university-trained healers from folk-healers and
apothecaries. (Line heard on Masterpiece Theater: "That old potion’s
not doing any good. Maybe we should get a doctor’s cure.")
"Doctor" is supposed to be an advanced degree, but just as the
smallest box of New Improved Tide is called "Giant", the lowest
graduates of any New Improved Discipline are likely to be called
"Doctors", especially if they’re competing against "real" doctors.
That’s one source of confusion. The other is the ambiguous status of
Chiropractic relative to Medicine. Chiropractors apparently have more
luck than physicians in treating back and joint problems. (MDs seem to
get into trouble whenever they need to regard their patient as a
dynamic entity, rather than a possibly-unbalanced mixture of humours.)
That doesn’t mean there’s a formal demarcation between the
disciplines. In point of fact, each discipline claims to be a
comprehensive approach to human health. And each discipline rejects
many basic assumptions of the other. Most chiropractors prefer to
minimize this conflict, for obvious reasons — but they do not see
themselves as "back doctors", but as general-purpose alternative
healers.
It should be noted that there are MDs who don’t even accept DCs as
"back doctors", claiming their manipulation techniques are quite
dangerous.
By the way, fire fighters are also taught to deliver babies.
—
e…@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch
netcom!e…@apple.com Silicon Valley, CA
{apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo
WISE SAYING NEEDED. Must reflect positive human values. Gentle humor a
plus. Cuties, pseudo-quotations, and jingoistic proverbs need not apply.