Well that's exactly what the left wants, the freedom to smoke marijuana. It's got nothing to do with medicine since Marinol, a pure medicine derived from the plant, is already available.
Oral delivery has slow onset and is thus more difficult to titrate than a breathed medicine; and patients with nausea often can't keep pills down.
Of course there are other medicines that are more effective.
More effective for EVERY patient? Can you suppor that claim?
Rush Limbaugh made a good point. Libertarians want to pretend that everything they want to affects nobody else.
If Rush is claiming that "affecting someone else" is the test for justifying government force, he's no longer a conservative. The true test, of course, is whether rights are violated ... which they are not by drug sale and use.
A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention.
Also true of the drug alcohol. Shall we re-ban that drug?
And if we're criminalizing "potential to harm our society" where do we stop? Ban junk food? Enforce bedtimes for adults? I didn't see your answer to this question.
That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep.
That's not the argument.
Kids, drugs are for idiots.
Misrepresenting one's opponent's argument is for idiots.
So it's OK to ban things that make people vote liberal? Attending Harvard? Reading the NY Times?
There you go again. Taking drugs is no worse than attending Harvard or reading the New York Times.
Another cowardly misrepresentation. Imagine my surprise.
No. That's moving in the opposite direction. Let's compound the problem by legalizing more drugs!
There are virtually NO reputable doctors that would argue that the benefit that comes from smoking a plant substance offsets the danger. But I expect you'll stop arguing for smoking pot as a medicine when this Dronabinol inhaler comes on the market?
More effective for EVERY patient? Can you suppor that claim?
Why would I have to support that claim?? If just one person claims that smoking marijuana is better than taking any legally available, studied, metered and dosed medicine does that mean we HAVE to consider marijuana a medicine? That's like saying we should be able to legally sell and take heroin on every street corner because it makes a lot of people feel good.
If Rush is claiming that "affecting someone else" is the test for justifying government force, he's no longer a conservative. The true test, of course, is whether rights are violated ... which they are not by drug sale and use.
You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone that Rush isn't a conservative. Why can't you just face the fact that you hold a liberal viewpoint on this issue?
Rights, as defined by the constitution, are inalienable rights granted by God to the people he created. God certainly didn't intend that people smoke dope or other drugs. They are the antithesis of the type of life God intends people to lead and drug use is specifically listed as one of those thing that are not Godly, but are works of the flesh.
A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention.
Also true of the drug alcohol. Shall we re-ban that drug?
Let me get this straight, your argument is that we should allow any harmful substance because some people abuse alcohol?
That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep.
That's not the argument.
That's not the argument, but it's certainly the ploy the left uses to make drug use more acceptable.
Kids, drugs are for idiots.
Misrepresenting one's opponent's argument is for idiots.
Equating drug use with attending Harvard, eating junk food and sleep is an idiotic line of argument.