Posted on 06/07/2006 4:58:25 PM PDT by Wolfie
That's what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing anything. I simply asked you to support your statement that the author implies that there is a intentional plot to blind drug users -- which you did not do.
You may be right about the lack of scientific validity, but r9etb's claim is that the article implies that the US is behind a plot to intentionally blind drug users. It does no such thing.
It claims that the fungus is dangerous, but it comes nowhere near implying what r9etb says it does.
Looks like a poor choice of words, not a carefully crafted essay. Sure, I see your point, but the error of the original article appears to be done with a purpose, not a poorly worded phrase like the other. No offense taken here. God bless.
FUNGUS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
It does seem that allowing domestic cannabis production would be a step of progress to those millions of us who enjoy cannabis.
They will flock to their physician to get a scrip for the latest drug advertised on TV by "big pharm" that "cures" whatever imaginary illness they may have (induced by the TV commercial), but they advocate busting some kid who buys two cans of whipped cream, and making laws requiring people to present their papers when buying (formerly) over-the-counter cold medication, because it "might" be used for purposes for which it was not intended.
Gotta' love 'em.
Who knows better: the ONDCP, CIA, DEA, and USDA, or a couple of WOD-worshipping COngresscritters?
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.