Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/15/2006 4:53:24 PM PDT by Wolfie
.. or we can continue to persecute the sick, dying, and lame... raid cancer wards... perpwalks for paraplegics.
No more so than the FDA discouraging the use of the deadly nightshade (belladonna) but endorsing the use of atropine produced from the plant.
Something to do with dangerous plant by-products vs. the pure form of the drug.
Straw man. Marijuana isn't Belladonna. Next.
ping
That's correct. You see, I was using an analogy. a-NAL-o-gee. An analogy is a comparison based on a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
In this case, the extracts of the plants have a medical use, whereas the plants themselves contain dangerous compounds.
No, you're just clouding the issue, and not responding in anyway to the thrust of the article. Have a nice day.
Really? According to the article, "The FDA is politically prohibited from recognizing the value of a medicine that can be grown by people for free because the agency has such close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This is my “theory” ..."
I was responding to that "thrust". If you'll allow the author to make these unsupported claims, then certainly my tame analogy is appropriate.
It makes more sense to me that the FDA would reject the medical appropriateness of a smoked plant because of the harmful carcinogens than some vague political tie to "the pharmaceutical industry".
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Oh give me a break. Inhaled smoke from MJ is harmless compared to many FDA approved drugs' side effects. Pretty weak argument there.
So dangerous that not a single person in the history of the world has died from an overdose or any other illness caused by consuming said plant.
Yes. That's one of the reasons smoked marijuana is not considered medicine. Do you know of a "carbon based compound which is combusted" which has FDA approval?
"Now one thing they didn't talk about is the benefits of vaporized marijuana."
A vaporizer would be safer, but how would this be enforced? Also, the THC content in a pill is regulated. There is no regulation for smoked marijuana. For example, how much and how often should a patient use vaporized marijuana for glaucoma? For MS?
It's all about power.
Without power, the politicians can't get lobbyists to contribute campaign money.
Without money, the politicians can't get reelected.
Without being reelected, the politicians can't wield power.
The only way to stop the vicious cycle is to elect politicians who rule based on principle rather than power. At the moment, I can't think of many.
Inhaled smoke from MJ contains more carcinogens than tobacco. The FDA wouldn't approve of smoked tobacco as medicine today -- but you think they should approve smoked marijuana?
How many FDA approved drugs' side effects include cancer?
Any other illness? You don't know that. You're assuming that because you haven't seen any report that says "this person died from cancer caused by smoking marijuana" that no one has.
MJ's side effects are cancer? Now you're just making up side effects out of thin air.
hold your horses, you don't even have a single case of Cancer caused by MJ......weak weak weak......
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.