Cannabis drug 'fights pain without high'

BBC On Line ^ | Wednesday, 21 August, 2002 | Unsigned

[A CA Guy]

Geat = Great

[A CA Guy]

Dam straight, their desire is for vice, not legitimate medications for actual needs. IMO!

[Khepera]

We'll have your Jug ready.

[steveo]

The compound was tested last year in 15 healthy volunteers in France who promptly surrendered after the study.

[WindMinstrel]

good point about the vice thing. We really need a department to prevent vice, and preserve virtue. Don't you agree?

[Malcolm]

I'm sure that there is a medicinal use for pot, but that's not why all the Libertarians are on FReep advocating it's legalization. They just want to be able to smoke it, period. I have nothing against medical use of pot, but I do against legalization along the lines of alcohol. The negative effects on children alone rule out that as a responsible goal. Someone criticized Bob Barr on here yesterday, saying that the people have a "right" to decide this. There is no specified right to possess nor smoke pot, and no specified right to referenda. So much for the pot-smoking crowd being Constitutional nuts. They're just the regular variety.....

[WindMinstrel]

wow, so we should ban anything that could be bad for you, Malcolm? That seems pretty strong, no?

[RipSawyer]

Can't have people altering their moods now, can we?

[WindMinstrel]

There is no specified right to possess nor smoke pot, and no specified right to referenda.

Ahh, that's right -- I had forgotten that the only rights we have are those specified. Everything not forbidden is mandatory, right?

[headsonpikes]

"There is no specified right..."

Last words of Louis XVI....;^)

[Destructor]

"Dam straight, their desire is for vice, not legitimate medications for actual needs. IMO!"

Really! Let's start a movement for medicinal Marijuana "without the high," and see how many of the noble potheads will support it. Wouldn't take a fortune teller to predict that outcome!

[Neckbone]

Wow, it took you 2.5 lines of text to claim that you're watching out "for the children" this time! You're getting slow.

[A CA Guy]

I agree 100% on what you said.
I also must say, this is a conservative place and Libertariams have many leftists agendas and platforms.

I know people are free to post here, but the Libertarians are NOT conservative.

[A CA Guy]

Well, I understand that some people have all their taste only in their mouth!

[A CA Guy]

Buy a dog, play a CD! And, good luck to you.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I have nothing against medical use of pot, but I do against legalization along the lines of alcohol. The negative effects on children alone rule out that as a responsible goal.

That's right, we wouldn't want kids to be able to go into a store and buy pot as easily as they can now buy booze.

[gdani]

Without the high, for most I bet it's goodbye! LOL

This coming from someone who claimed that a short while ago the news was just *filled* with stories about how pot smokers were going to get sick and possibly die because "of the mercury in the ground where pot is grown".

Yet everytime I ask for even one, single link to such a news story you haven't provided one. I wonder why?

(Apparently, the WOD'ers feel it's OK to lie if it serves their purpose.......but then I already knew that).

[A CA Guy]

We shouldn't start-up everything that is bad for us because some want cheap highs through illegal drugs when their life is lacking.

[A CA Guy]

I agree with your suggestion that few if any potheads and Libertarian political friends would accept it without the high.

[WindMinstrel]

that made no sense. Could you rephrase it?