The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition (Op-Ed)

Frontiers of Freedom ^ | June 15, 2006 | Kenneth Michael White

[Know your rights]

You claimed that government intrusion based on health concerns is not proper. I said you're wrong.

Now you're trying to parse this into "if the government does "A" then they must do "B" and if you don't allow them to do "C" you're a hypocrite".

No, I'm correctly noting the logical implication of your position, that if the government intrudes based on health concern "A" then they must, absent sound reason to the contrary, intrude based on health concern "B" and if you don't allow them to intrude based on health concern "B" you're a hypocrite.

[RobRoy]

>>GOD MADE POT
MAN MADE PHARMIES <<

So true. Back in 1974 my grandfather had cancer. My straightlaced mom had me get marijuana for him and made him lots of brownies. She is now a BIG believer in medical marijuana.

Problem is that none of us would even know where to get it now, even if we needed it...

You want to talk about risks? Look at any drug ad in Readers Digest and check out the two pages of two point font disclaimers.

RP, you really are barking up the wrong tree here. Marijuana just isn't the evil weed it has been made out to be. I consider alcohol and most man-made drugs to be much worse.

[robertpaulsen]

"I know where you are going with this, but the problem is that Marijuana is just not that dangerous."

I agree that marijuana is not as dangerous. But the negative effects of the carcinogenic compounds and psychoactive properties can be avoided in the extract. That was the only point of my analogy.

[RobRoy]

>.SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

Where does that put YOU ? <<

Hitler liked dogs.

I like dogs.

Does that make me a nazi?

[RobRoy]

>>Probably some government studies.<<

Probably?

PROBABLY?!!!

I have been wasting my time here.

Good day.

[DaiHuy]

The FDA is looking for handouts. A drug named Picovir was refused FDA approval because 2 women in 1000 who used birth control pills in conjunction with Picovir got pregnant. (the normal failure rate with the pill)

ViroPharma sold the compound to one of the big pharma companies, Merck I think, and it was immediately approved for release under a different name.

IMHO it is simply because Merck greased the right palms at the FDA.

[DaiHuy]

"It took decades of cigarette smoking by millions of Americans before the links between tobacco and lung cancer and other lung diseases were shown."

And it is still legal!!!

[robertpaulsen]

The author is basically saying that but for this cozy relationship, smoked marijuana would be approved by the federal government as medicine. Do you believe this?

[robertpaulsen]

So you put marijuana, which cures no disease and which offers no benefit that 10 other FDA-approved drugs already offer, in the same category as life-saving drugs that may have serious side effects?

I believe you're elevating the medicinal properties of pot a little higher than I would.

[robertpaulsen]

"1. What would the health risk of tobacco be if the average person smoked half a cigarette or less per day?"

Minimal. If tobacco was just discovered, would it be approved today as a legal product? Do you really want to compare marijuana to tobacco?

"2. Is there an offsetting health benefit to smoking tobacco comparable to those scientifically attributed to Marijuana?"

The study I read indicates that those who smoke marijuana are actually less likely to get cancer than those who smoke nothing. Do you believe that? Or do you just want to believe that?

Or, do you think it's too soon to tell if marijuana causes cancer because we don't yet have enough in the way of valid long-term statistics.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

So you keep claiming ... but not supporting. What is the relevancy you claim?

Oh please this is getting most tiresome. You know full well what the relevancy of "somewhat support" is to your claim that 41% of the people support the legalization of pot. But then when you have a losing issue, (only 41% in total), and in that number is used a large percentage of people who ONLY "somewhat" support the issue, I guess you are forced to "somewhat" stretch the quality of the strength of your support.

When you've had the decency to answer mine, I'll answer yours.

Somehow on this one, I don't believe you.........

[Know your rights]

You know full well what the relevancy of "somewhat support" is to your claim that 41% of the people support the legalization of pot.

I see no relevancy to it.

When you've had the decency to answer mine, I'll answer yours.

Somehow on this one, I don't believe you.........

Here's your golden opportunity to prove me a liar ... and to AT LONG LAST answer the simple question you've been dodging.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Here's your golden opportunity to prove me a liar ... and to AT LONG LAST answer the simple question you've been dodging.

I have dodged no question from you. The relevancy of the "somewhat" category is obvious. I am suprised that you must have the obvious explained to you. But I will try to help......

Ok, let's take away the 17% that "somewhat" support legalization, and I will take away the 11% that "somewhat" oppose legalization, I still win, 46% oppose legalization, and only 24% support legalization. You see any relevancy there?

[Know your rights]

Ok, let's take away the 17% that "somewhat" support legalization, and I will take away the 11% that "somewhat" oppose legalization,

Why should we do either of those things?

I still win, 46% oppose legalization, and only 24% support legalization. You see any relevancy there?

No.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Ok, let's don't take away the "somewhats", you still lose. Badly.................

[Know your rights]

Ok, let's don't take away the "somewhats",

There goes any claim that they were relevant. Buh-bye.

you still lose.

For now.

Badly.................

Not at all. It's climbed from the low 20s (if I recall correctly) over a few decades; topping the 50%+1 mark is only a matter of time.

[GeekDejure]

Isle Ike Mare Uh Wanna !!!

Does that make me a FReeper ??? ;-))