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

USA Today ^ | March 9, 2004 | Steve Sternberg

[FairOpinion]

NEW ORLEANS

[cinFLA]

Maybe I missed the point, is it my fault if you don't make the point clearly?

I guess putting the point in the FIRST sentence of the FIRST paragraph would be clear enough for most. Next time for you I will bold and underline it, if you like.

[cinFLA]

is it my fault

YES

[cinFLA]

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

I chose to ignore your opening, child-like bawling.

[cinFLA]

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. :)

I addressed the item that responded to my post.

[-YYZ-]

Still haven't come up with this phantom list of rules for responding to posts here, have you? Looks to me you just make up your own rules of how you think the debate should progress as you go along, depending on how it goes for you.

Get back to me when you grow up, ya big baby.

Until then I won't be replying to your mostly mindless posts, although I may reply on occasion when your posts actually have some content, as the one above which I initially responded to did. I reserve the right to point out your lies and unsupported accusations whenever you make them, however.

[Ophiucus]

smoked marijuana is not a Federal Drug Administration-approved medicine.

I see you have restructured your position. If you had started from the point that smoked marijuana is not a fully approved drug for sale and distribution by the FDA, you would have been correct.

You began your position as:
Research has shown that smoked marijuana will never be a medicine.

Medicine - An agent, such as a drug, used to treat disease or injury. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Smoked marijuana has been used since ancient times in exactly that manner. It was used in the US until 1937 as a medicine. Canada approved it for medical use in 2003. Nine states, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, in the US at the time also allowed limited use under the supervision of a doctor.

Thus, smoked marijuana is a medicine.

The FDA has only given approval for initial clinical studies. It has not given it approval for pharmaceutical companies to begin distribution. At that point, you would have been correct if so stated.

[Ophiucus]

No. That was -YYZ- you are referring to.

You know perfectly well that it was the exact type of question you were asking with your "do you deny that you are for legalization of crack" was. The same slime tactic question with the same motive.

[cinFLA]

"Do I favor the legalization of crack?" is "Maybe."

I see you have restructured your position.

[Ophiucus]

Falsely, as I have noted.

Perfectly on target, as others have noted.

[cinFLA]

Perfectly on target, as others have noted.

I have made three posts noting your false paraphrasing and selective omissions. You have made no effort to address these concerns.

[Ophiucus]

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

Look at posts 40, 47, 48, 52, 59.

Word for word. I think it must irritate you when everyone in the forum knows you for the lame, disruptive liar that you are.

[cinFLA]

You know perfectly well that it was the exact type of question you were asking with your "do you deny that you are for legalization of crack" was.

My question can be answered with an honest yes or no. Unlike -YYZ-'s question of 'Have you stopped beating your wife' that you are characterizing me of making.

If I had asked you if you 'still supported legalization of crack' you might have a point but that was NOT my question. Example:

Do you deny that you are for legalization of crack? YES! (means you are not for legalization of crack.

[-YYZ-]

I said: "Do I favor the legalization of crack?" is "Maybe." (which you've already replied to once, btw)

You said: "I see you have restructured your position."

Well, I said I wouldn't respond, but here goes anyway: Huh? What are you talking about?

[cinFLA]

Well, I said I wouldn't respond, but here goes anyway: Huh?

I see you have restructured your position.

[Ophiucus]

You have made no effort to address these concerns.

They've been addressed. Saying that they haven't is the same form of lying as repeatedly sliming with the same accusation question.

[Ophiucus]

"Do I favor the legalization of crack?" is "Maybe."

I see you have restructured your position.

First line of my post #86 is "I see you have restructured your position."

Now, either cinFLA is plagiarizing to make another false accusation, this time to you, YYZ, or he is trying to create another lie by accusing me, through you in some twisted way, that I changed from a definite NO in #51 to a MAYBE as stated by YYZ in #68.

All those lies must be hard to keep in order.

[cinFLA]

I just read this post of yours. Since it is almost exactly my position, why did you get all over me and my post?

If someone says they can control the dosage better by smoking, they're either stoned or ignorant. If you had to take a 5 mg dose of widgetol and your choices were to smoke a 'rolled cigarette' of widget leaf containing 3-10 mg of widgetol depending on where it grew, how wet the growing season was, and how long ago it was harvested or 2.5 mg tablets of measured and processed widgetol, which would you use?

As far as impurities, smoked marijuana not only delivers a couple carcinogens but has many other physiologically active substances. That's why early studies had difficulties. It was hard to determine which cannabinoid was the one causing the desired effect and which were causing the side effects - like pain relief versus mental disorientation. With an isolated cannabinoid or a synthetic, the action becomes specific and side effects can be minimized.

[cinFLA]

Now, either cinFLA is plagiarizing to make another false accusation, this time to you, YYZ, or he is trying to create another lie by accusing me, through you in some twisted way, that I changed from a definite NO in #51 to a MAYBE as stated by YYZ in #68.

HuH? You are nowhere in #68. That was YYZ's post and it had nothing to do with you. I think you are getting paranoid.

[Ophiucus]

My question can be answered with an honest yes or no. Unlike -YYZ-'s question of 'Have you stopped beating your wife' that you are characterizing me of making.
If I had asked you if you 'still supported legalization of crack' you might have a point but that was NOT my question.

Your posts have all the merit of Clinton debating what the meaning of 'is' is.

[-YYZ-]

"Now, either cinFLA is plagiarizing to make another false accusation, this time to you, YYZ, or he is trying to create another lie by accusing me, through you in some twisted way, that I changed from a definite NO in #51 to a MAYBE as stated by YYZ in #68.

All those lies must be hard to keep in order."


OR, and this is the theory I subscribe to, he's just playing games like the childish jerk that he is. And if I want to play childish games, I'll just go visit my nieces and nephews.

(I've included you on the "To" list, c, because I wouldn't want to be accused of saying things about you without pinging you)