[robertpaulsen]

"Why not do a study like this RP? Could you offer some reasons?"

Because smoking a homegrown and handmade impure non-filtered plant product down to the last nanometer, drawing it deep into the lungs and holding it, is not a healthy delivery system for a medicine? Inhaling 600 chemicals to get the possible benefit of one or two makes sense to you? What's the negative effect of those 598 chemicals? You don't know, nor do you care. Some of us do.

"What is wrong with studying the positive effects of something used in it's natural state?"

Using this logic, if there's a medical benefit offered by a chemical found in gasoline, you'd favor a patient drinking gasoline. Hey, sorry. That's where your logic takes me.

Using MY logic, we'd isolate the chemical, study it, do trials, write a peer reviewed report, publish side effects, drug interactions, set dosages and frequency, get FDA approval, and have the medicine prescribed by a doctor through a licensed pharmacy.

But hey. That's me.

"However, I'm Just sayin those negatives should be weighed on the scale of decision making."

They have been. Smoked marijuana is not medicine. No major medical organization supports smoked marijuana.

Why are you so against isolating these cannabinoids and making them available as safe medicine? Well, I think we know why. Getting you to admit it is a whole 'nuther matter.

Oh, why are we only offering "medical marijuana" to those over 21? Why can't a 7-year-old benefit from it? Is there any other medicine out of the tens of thousands out there that are restricted to those over 21?

Geez. You're not so compassionate after all. You'd let little kids suffer. You .... monster, you.

[Just sayin]

Because smoking a homegrown and handmade impure non-filtered plant product down to the last nanometer

Handmade? Is a tomato plant handmade also? Impure you say? What exactly is your definition of 'pure'? Whatever the FDA says?

drawing it deep into the lungs and holding it, is not a healthy delivery system for a medicine?

Would you be saying that inhaled medicines are not approved by the FDA itself today? Walking on thin ice there aren't you RP? How is Asthma treated again? What about pneumonia? Will you say that these two examples are not being treated with a healthy delivery system when treated with ummmm inhalers?

Inhaling 600 chemicals to get the possible benefit of one or two makes sense to you? What's the negative effect of those 598 chemicals?

And now many of these 600 chemicals are you exposed to otherwise in a daytime RP? How about studying that? How about studying the effects when used in combination so that the results can be compared to the results when studied seperately?

You don't know, nor do you care. Some of us do.

You are the one saying not to study something so it is indeed you who doesn't care. I have not said not to study anything RP, but you are saying that huh. How much do you really care when you refuse to study but one side and one perspective?

Using this logic

To claim logic one must compare apples to apples. Please demonstrate similarities in acute reactions to a left handed cigarette and drinking gasoline. I would appreciate seeing how you logically commence to explaining your comparison's merit as apples to apples.

While you try to do that, I will point out that while you will refer to long term exposure to MJ, I will point to long term exposure to things like Oxycontin and Vicodin. This would be a more accurate and logical comparison and the latter demonstrates more problems than the former...yet you consider the latter OK simply because the FDA says so.

They have been.

Sure the supposed negatives ( I say 'supposed' because of the use of words like "can" "may" "might" "sometimes" are used as if they mean "is" and "does" and "will") have been weighed. The positives, however, are just starting to be recognized. They have not been put on the scale RP, and you yourself, thru your own statements, are trying to keep them from being put on that scale even now today.

I am not against isolating a particular entity RP. I am against refining something that doesn't need to be refined, thus raising the price and availability in undue ways. A straight up study of raw form use is a good thing, if you truly seek honest and truthful knowledge to compare with other similar knoweldge. Seems you and I differ on that point. Seems you would ignore a part of the information that would be truly needed to make an informed decision.

Under 21 use would have to be a decision made by the parent. Just as if the situation was with codine cough medicine. You present a heck of a straw man with that comment RP.

Then you resort to an ad hominem attack. Not surprising, that is exactly what leftist liberals do when confronted with things they don't like and cannot refute with honest debate. Sure, you will now claim it was just sarcasm but see, that excuse fails, as badly as your debate, when you used your own creation of a strawman to set it up.