One pill a day could keep food and nicotine cravings away (Rimonabant)

USA Today ^ | March 9, 2004 | Steve Sternberg

[FairOpinion]

NEW ORLEANS

[Focault's Pendulum]

One pill a day could keep food and nicotine cravings away (Rimonabant)

If things like this keep cropping up....I may be doomed to live forever. I don't think I could stand it.

I'm still trying to get over Rap Music and body piercing.

It's not like I'm suicidal or anything....but maybe I'll just jump out of my first floor window, and sprain my ankle.

[cinFLA]

Noted. I misread your post:

"No. I can't believe you actually answered a question!"

Thinking that the "No" was an exclamation related to the sentence.

[Ophiucus]

People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?

Variation on method. Attempt to slime the opponent with a spurious, lying "have you stopped beating your wife" question and repeat the slime even if the question is answered:

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?

C: Are you also one of those pro-crack legalizers?
K: Are you gay (an idiot)?
C: Do you favor legalization of crack? K: No.
C: You didn't answer the question - Do you favor legalization of crack?
K: No. Idiot.
C: People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?

YYZ is probably still staring at the screen with a 'wow, this guy is an idiot' look on his face.

This is another basic DemoRat approach, ask the same false and accusatory question enough times to try to make the opposition look like they agree no matter how many times they say no.

[krb]

Yeah the whole thing is frustrating. You obviously are a good source of pharmacological expertise and could teach everyone lurking in the thread a thing or two about how drugs work and perhaps a bit about the economics of drug research, but the disruptors sap away productive time by trying to make other people chase false dilemmas.

I still want to see the research that says that smoked mj is provably non medicinal.

[cinFLA]

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?

Of course, your posting the above to make it seem like I posted something I did NOT post is your responsible type of posting?

[cinFLA]

Do you consider it responsible posting to leave out part of the sub-thread?

---

C: Are you also one of those pro-crack legalizers?
K: Are you gay (an idiot)?
C: Do you favor legalization of crack? K: No.
C: You didn't answer the question - Do you favor legalization of crack?
K: No. Idiot.
C: People that won't answer the question: Do you favor legalization of crack?

[cinFLA]

Organizations seeking to construe marijuana as medicine appeal to the compassion of America. They cite testimonials that only marijuana can provide relief to patients suffering from AIDS, cancer and other painful diseases. In reality, smoked marijuana is not a Federal Drug Administration-approved medicine. As a crude plant, marijuana is so complex, unstable, and harmful that sensible physicians and researchers consider it unethical to expose individuals to the risks associated with smoking it.

Smoking marijuana impairs attention, memory, and dexterity, and increases the risk of traffic accidents. Repeated use can lead to respiratory disease and permanent cognitive impairment. Marijuana use is addictive.

There is a variety of existing, scientifically proven options available to patients in need of pain relief. Among these is the FDA-approved medicine Marinol. But smoked marijuana advocates refuse to acknowledge Marinol as a viable option. Interestingly enough, the only property that Marinol lacks is the capacity to create a "high."

The "Smoking is toking" campaign during the Great American Smoke Out illustrates the impact the marijuana lobby has already had on our children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 13 of 14 major cities, more youngsters smoke marijuana than cigarettes. They know cigarettes are bad for them. Youth smoking prevention efforts are paying off.

One can only imagine to what extent our successful anti-smoking efforts would be stymied if there were an unchallenged, well-organized effort promoting "medical tobacco" under the guise of compassion. Unless we give thoughtful deliberation to the consequences of deeming marijuana as medicine, we will be the ones to thank when drug prevention efforts falter and our children suffer the consequences.

[-YYZ-]

"YYZ is probably still staring at the screen with a 'wow, this guy is an idiot' look on his face."

Nah, I've known that for a while.

And for the record, while it's not relevant to this discussion, the answer to the question "Do I favor the legalization of crack?" is "Maybe." Happy now? Do I get on to your list of Soros's shills now, cinFLA?

[cinFLA]

And for the record, while it's not relevant to this discussion, the answer to the question "Do I favor the legalization of crack?" is "Maybe." Happy now? Do I get on to your list of Soros's shills now, cinFLA?

Maybe.

[-YYZ-]

"Smoking marijuana impairs attention, memory, and dexterity, and increases the risk of traffic accidents. Repeated use can lead to respiratory disease and permanent cognitive impairment. Marijuana use is addictive."

Some of which is debatable, and none of which is very relevant to people with terminal conditions, just as the risk of opiod addiction is terminal patients is irrelevant.

None of which is relevant to this thread, in any case. What's the problem, you don't get your fill of blathering on about this stuff in the actual medical marijuana, anti-WOD and pro-MJ-legalization threads?

[cinFLA]

It is not responsible for you to pull out a secondary paragraph in my post and use it to discredit the entire post. If I had omitted it you probably would have accused me of selective omission in my post.

[Ophiucus]

You obviously are a good source of pharmacological expertise and could teach everyone lurking in the thread a thing or two about how drugs work and perhaps a bit about the economics of drug research, but the disruptors sap away productive time by trying to make other people chase false dilemmas

Yes, like I posted toward the beginning, the first couple of years of my neurophysiology grad schooling I worked in a lab that used cannabinoid receptor antagonists. One project was in partnership with Sanofie and used the Sanofie drug SR141716 (SR141716a is facing approval as Rimonabant). The lab had funding troubles when the government declared that since marijuana was a bad drug, all research into how it's effects might be used for future therapies was "bad" research.

The really sad part was that the cannabinoid receptor had been described - meaning the locations of marijuana receptors in the brain and peripheral nerves were found, the structure of the receptors described, and even a natural cannabinoid, anandamide, that the body produces as a neurotransmitter had been found. That meant that like opium, the body uses a similar compound to THC as a way for neurons to communicate. That meant a brand new way for new drugs to control the nervous system to treat disease.

Exciting stuff for medical science.

I still want to see the research that says that smoked mj is provably non medicinal.

The research that is out there states the objections that I mentioned before - smoked marijuana's effectiveness is limited by dosage control, purity, and all the other substances in the plant that would case side effects - like being stoned. Not a good thing if you want to stop seizures or treat pain but have an alert patient.

Yet, an old medicine that is not a perfect medicine is still a medicine - which has been my basic point.

[-YYZ-]

Oh, waah waah waah, ya big baby. The entire contents of your post is up there for anyone to read, if they want to. I wished to address that one paragraph, so that's what I included. Do you want to find some posting guidelines for me somewhere that say that I should only include the whole of a post that I'm replying to? You'll probably be as successful at that as you are at backing up any of your other assertions.

[cinFLA]

I wished to address that one paragraph,

And you elected to ignore the first paragraph which was the point of my post.

[Ophiucus]

Of course, your posting the above to make it seem like I posted something I did NOT post is your responsible type of posting?

Everything came from your posts.

Do you consider it responsible posting to leave out part of the sub-thread?

There is no "sub-thread." There is your pattern of disruption which I was illustrating in the same fashion as the Heston argument. That pattern being your consistent method, in this thread and others, of a 'did you stop beating your wife' sliming question which you repeat ad nauseum.

It's like you're Terry McAwful in diapers.

[cinFLA]

of a 'did you stop beating your wife' sliming question which you repeat ad nauseum.

No. That was -YYZ- you are referring to. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? 46 posted on 03/11/2004 10:34:04 AM PST by -YYZ-

[cinFLA]

I was illustrating

Falsely, as I have noted.

[cinFLA]

Everything came from your posts.

HuH? You used paraphrasing and selective omissions to miscontrue my posts.

[-YYZ-]

Well, to start with, there's nothing that says I have to respond to "the point" of your post. I presume that paragraph was meant to be in support of the point you were trying to make, so what's wrong with addressing just that? Maybe I missed the point, is it my fault if you don't make the point clearly?

I don't know what kind of rules, stated or not, you think apply to discussions on this board, but I assure you they are mostly just in your head.

[-YYZ-]

"And you elected to ignore the first paragraph which was the point of my post."

Oh, and by the way, maybe it escaped your notice, but you only included and addressed one sentence from my post. How about the rest of it? You ignored the point I was making. :)