Posted on 03/09/2004 8:58:30 PM PST by FairOpinion
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:42:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW ORLEANS
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Do you deny supporting the legalization of crack? What is difficult about the question? A simple yes means you do not support it, a no means you you do not deny; you may or may not support it. Since you were able to say no, what is your beef?
You have NEVER addressed the selective omissions you made to my posts inorder to make your point.
Have you stopped eating babies?
Keep going - you're almost there.
You claiming that Research has shown that smoked marijuana will never be a medicine.
This is an incorrect statement. Marijuana already was a medicine and is being used as a medicine.
Secondly, the article was not about smoked marijuana but a cannabinoid antagonist. Cannabinoid in that it interacts with the type of receptor of the same name, discovered through THC research. Antagonist in that it blocks that receptor thus preventing the physiological effect of that receptor being activated. Important cannabinoid drugs, antagonists and agonists, were hindered in development by the government perception of marijuana being an evil weed that shouldn't be researched.
My point is that research has shown that smoked marijuana will never be a medicine. Just because someone at sometime has used marijuana does not mean it will be classified as a medicine in the future. In fact, your own words support the fact that smoked marijuana will not be classified as a medicine.
I apologize. If my wife sticks a nail in her foot or has uterine hemmorhaging, I will have her lie down and smoke a joint.
Listen and learn. The beef is that I refuted your unsupported and incorrect assertion that marijuana will never be a medicine. Showed how all you could do was repeat the same unsupported claim and you responded:
Summary of the Ophiucus argument. >>>> Legalize crack and all our problems will go up in smoke
This is a lie - to go from marijuana has been used for a medicine to 'you want to legalize crack.' My response:
Did I even hint at legalizing crack?
Yours: Do you deny you are for legalization of crack?
Thus it was not a simple question, but a set-up question - you lied with the slime that I wanted to legalize crack and then asked do I deny like asking Clinton if he denied having sex with the intern.
By making the false accusation and then using the word "deny," you are engaging in deceitful slime tactics - not asking a simple question.
Reread 91.
Repeating the same charge after it's been answered is another one of those DemoRat lie methods you use.
Yes, I gave it up for Lent, thanks. How you making out with that wife-beating problem? ;-)
I dare you to put up the entire posts you referred to in your post below! Word for word! Ha!
C: Do you deny you are for legalization of crack?
O: I am not for legalization.
C: People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?
Try reading the whole post.
"An agent, such as a drug, used to treat disease or injury." That's the definition for medicine. Marijuana qualifies.
Now - just because Charlton Heston was a film star in the past does not mean he will be considered on in the future.
Does that make sense? Is John Wayne no longer a film star because he's dead? Nope, he's a dead film star - but still a star.
Smoked marijuana was used as a medicine. Right now, our neighbors to the north are using it. Right now, some states are still allowing smoked marijuana to be used as a medicine in controlled environments.
Therefor, marijuana is a medicine. Inhalation of marijuana may not be approved by the FDA in the future. Purified and synthetic forms delivered P.O., I.M., or I.V. will. That does not change the definition of marijuana as a medicine since it has been, and is classified as a medicine.
Can you get the difference between FDA approved drug and a medicine?
When I first considered this issue in the early 1970s, I assumed that cannabis as medicine would be identical to the marijuana that is used for other purposes (the dried flowering tops of female Cannabis indica plants); toxicity is minimal, dosage is easily titrated and, once freed of the prohibition tariff, it will be inexpensive. I thought the main problem was its classification in Schedule I of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970, which describes it as having a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At that time I naively believed that a change to Schedule II would overcome a major obstacle to its legal availability as a medicine. I had already come to believe that the greatest harm in recreational use of marijuana came not from the drug itself but from the effects of prohibition (Grinspoon, 1971). But I saw that as a separate issue; I believed that, like opiates and cocaine, cannabis could be used medically while remaining outlawed for other purposes. I thought that once it was transferred to Schedule II, clinical research on marijuana would be pursued eagerly. A quarter of a century later, I have begun to doubt this. It would be highly desirable if marijuana could be approved as a legitimate medicine within the present federal regulatory system, but it now seems to me unlikely.
Today, transferring marijuana to Schedule II (high potential for abuse, limited medical use) would not be enough to make it available as a prescription drug. Such drugs must undergo rigorous, expensive, and time-consuming tests before they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This system is designed to regulate the commercial distribution of drug company products and protect the public against false or misleading claims about their efficacy and safety. The drug is generally a single synthetic chemical that a pharmaceutical company has developed and patented. The company submits an application to the FDA and tests it first for safety in animals and then for clinical safety and efficacy. The company must present evidence from double-blind controlled studies showing that the drug is more effective than a placebo and as effective as available drugs. The cost of this evaluation exceeds 200 million dollars per drug. Case reports, expert opinion, and clinical experience are not considered sufficient.
It is unlikely that whole smoked marijuana should or will ever be developed as an officially recognized medicine via this route. The extensive government-supported effort of the last three decades to establish a sufficient level of toxicity to support prohibition has instead provided a record of marijuana's safety that is more compelling than that of many, if not most, approved medicines, while thousands of years of medical use have demonstrated its value. The modern FDA protocol is not the only way to establish a risk-benefit estimate for a drug with such a long history. To impose this protocol on cannabis would be like making the same demand of aspirin, which was accepted as a medicine more than 60 years before the advent of the double-blind controlled study. Many years of experience have shown us that aspirin has many uses and limited toxicity. Even if we thought that this experience was insufficient to establish its credentials by modern standards, it would not be possible to marshal it through the FDA approval process. The patent has long since expired, and with it the enormous economic incentive to underwrite the cost of this modern seal of approval. The plant cannabis too cannot be patented, so the only source of funding for a "start-from-scratch" approval would be the government, which is, to put it mildly, unlikely to be helpful. Other reasons for doubting that marijuana would ever be officially approved are today's anti-smoking climate and, most important, the widespread use of cannabis for purposes disapproved by the government.
O: Did I even hint at legalizing crack?
C: Do you deny you are for legalization of crack?
O: I am not for the legalization of crack. There is no "denying" of anything. Once again you ignore the point that you are incorrect about marijuana as a medicine and instead rely on obfuscation.
C: to K: Are you also one of those pro-crack legalizers?
Y: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
C: Are you also one of those pro-crack legalizers?
C: Ophiucus;krb;-YYZ- People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?
[C: to Y: Have you found help for your cocaine habit? (didn't include but could have)]
K: Are you gay C: No. Do you favor legalization of crack?
K: No. I can't believe you actually answered a question! C: krb;-YYZ- People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?
K: Reread my post. I answered your question "No." Are you an idiot?
There you go - word for word of that repeating of your accusation.
You never answered the question though...are you an idiot?
I know, rhetorical, you already showed us the answer.
I forgot. Smoked marijuana as a medicine cures tetanus and uterus hemorrhaging. The evil FDA does not want us to know that.
From your own site - and I hope this isn't your research evidence as it is a pro-legalization site - index2 page:
Sounds suspiciously like medicine...perhaps you should have look at their articles on the medical uses of marijuana. They even quote the same government study I used earlier that recommended approval of smoked marijuana.The Forbidden Medicine Welcome to a place to learn about patients' experiences with medical marijuana.
I thought the main problem was its classification in Schedule I of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970, which describes it as having a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At that time I naively believed that a change to Schedule II would overcome a major obstacle to its legal availability as a medicine.
A couple things - he recognizes it is a medicine, just not approved by the FDA - sound familiar?
Secondly, THC has been schedule 2 since 1985-86.
Third, it was approved in nine states for use as a recognized drug (that's like an approved medicine).
By the way, since smoked marijuana is not only recognized as a medicine but government approved north of the border and in other nations, it invalidates your initial blanket claim.
It is unlikely that whole smoked marijuana should or will ever be developed as an officially recognized medicine via this route.
That's a key concept you still fail to grasp - FDA approval of a drug doesn't instantly make it a medicine. There are lots of medicines used in Europe not used here because their approval isn't as strict. Are those drugs not medicines? No, but you can't seem to understand that.
Many years of experience have shown us that aspirin has many uses and limited toxicity. Even if we thought that this experience was insufficient to establish its credentials by modern standards, it would not be possible to marshal it through the FDA approval process.
Would that make aspirin an un-medicine too?
Well, no, see being a medicine doesn't hinge upon FDA approval.
Lying again. Do you not know the difference between treat and cure.
Could you be more asinine with your exaggerations.
You are such an abject moron. Bolded for your stupidity.
O: Did I even hint at legalizing crack?
C: Do you deny you are for legalization of crack?
O: I am not for the legalization of crack. There is no "denying" of anything. Once again you ignore the point that you are incorrect about marijuana as a medicine and instead rely on obfuscation.
C: to K: Are you also one of those pro-crack legalizers?
Y: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
C: Are you also one of those pro-crack legalizers?
C: Ophiucus;krb;-YYZ- People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?
[C: to Y: Have you found help for your cocaine habit? (didn't include but could have)]
K: Are you gay C: No. Do you favor legalization of crack?
K: No. I can't believe you actually answered a question! C: krb;-YYZ- People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?
K: Reread my post. I answered your question "No." Are you an idiot?
So moron junior, see how I used only our posts in that exerpt to match up responses. Is that simple thing beyond you too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.