Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Know your rights
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.

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.

216 posted on 07/03/2006 7:51:50 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]


To: DouglasKC
There are virtually NO reputable doctors that would argue that the benefit that comes from smoking a plant substance offsets the danger.

The Institute of Medicine said they very well might for terminal patients. How's that crow taste?

But I expect you'll stop arguing for smoking pot as a medicine when this Dronabinol inhaler comes on the market?

I'll argue that those who can afford the latter should certainly consider it first.

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?

It means the decision should be left to patient and doctor.

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.

Conservative is as conservative does. Conservatism existed long before Rush and is not defined by him.

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.

Where's the evidence that He intended people to imprison other people for it?

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?

No, my argument is that if you believed the principle you're proclaiming you'd support banning alcohol ... yet you don't.

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

Then don't drag that straw man into this exchange.

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.

I didn't make that line of argument. Leave your straw men at the door.

217 posted on 07/03/2006 9:22:19 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson