[robertpaulsen]

"Marijuana isn't Belladonna"

That's correct. You see, I was using an analogy. a-NAL-o-gee. An analogy is a comparison based on a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

In this case, the extracts of the plants have a medical use, whereas the plants themselves contain dangerous compounds.

[Wolfie]

No, you're just clouding the issue, and not responding in anyway to the thrust of the article. Have a nice day.

[xpertskir]

The "active ingredient" in marijuana is THC. The active ingredient in any marijuana based pill would also be THC. The only thing "dangerous" about marijuana smoke is tar and toxins which are the same as any carbon based compound which is combusted.

Now one thing they didn't talk about is the benefits of vaporized marijuana. For those not in the know a vaporizer super-heats the marijuana and "burns" off the THC while leaving the compounds containing toxins and tar unburned. This is widely known as the "healthiest" and most beneficial way to consume marijuana.

[Sir Gawain]

whereas the plants themselves contain dangerous compounds

So dangerous that not a single person in the history of the world has died from an overdose or any other illness caused by consuming said plant.

[KeepUSfree]

No, because nightshade is poisonous - mariajuana is not.

[RobRoy]

>>In this case, the extracts of the plants have a medical use, whereas the plants themselves contain dangerous compounds.<<

which is why this analogy does not work. I know where you are going with this, but the problem is that Marijuana is just not that dangerous.

I have not touched the stuff since 1977, and think it is pretty stupid (and you'll get more stupid if you do it) to smoke it for the purpose of getting high. That said, you may find it interesting what got me to open my mind to getting high in the first place:

I was a goody-two-shoes in my senior year of high school (1972) and did a report on the evils of Marijuana. Guess what I found out? Like the "theory" of evolution it was pretty much all smoke and mirrors. It was all about what was possible as opposed to what was empirically verifiable. Thre really was no remotely solid evidence for direct negative effects.

Less than a year later a really "hot" chick wanted to get high. I did...