Replies

So...maybe you should post the rest of the story. BTW, this is from your link to Merck.

I did not post selectively from the link, as you imply. I posted the first paragraph, which summed up the conclusions. It is considered poor etiquette to post multiple page references. I included the link so others could read the exculpatory evidence they seem to want to think does not exist. I hope you read the entire link and were open to the objective information.

It’s not harmless.

Heh, who said it was?

I can’t help but believe that smoking pot isn’t akin to smoking cigarettes, but with a much better mellow.

If the conclusions in the Merck manual are correct, then it is not akin to smoking cigarettes. To wit:

(Merck) There is no evidence of increased risk of head and neck or airway cancers, as there is with tobacco.

My final point is that if you think your state should outlaw it, fine. If you think that the federal government has the power, under the constitution, to outlaw personal intrastate use of marijuana, well that's too bad.

To your final, and most important point, this is a debate each of the states should have, and not the feds.

My state has medical marijuana laws, and they are abused.

Despite your references to Merck, my daughter is a PharmD who works with the public and not in a pharmacy. Based on her experiences, she disagrees with you.

So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.