There's no danger if you're going to die soon, is there? From the "Institute of Medicine" report:
Smoking marijuana is not recommended. The long-term harm caused by smoking marijuana makes it a poor drug delivery system, particularly for patients with chronic illnesses.
Terminal cancer patients pose different issues. For those patients the medical harm associated with smoking is of little consequence. For terminal patients suffering debilitating pain or nausea and for whom all indicated medications have failed to provide relief, the medical benefits of smoked marijuana might outweigh the harm.
If this is the "best" you guys have for experts recommending smoking marijuana, then you're on very shaky ground.
Note how very narrow and limited this ONE agency says smoked marijuana MIGHT be helpful. MIGHT.
To listen to the leftist propagandist one would think that smoking marijuana is the cure for every type of illness known to man.
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.
Why am I not surprised. And if an inhaler were cheaper than buying pot would you THEN come out and condemn smoking marijuana as an effective medicine?
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.
Let me guess....you're all for "assisted suicide" too, aren't you?
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?
Actually the penalty was death.
No, my argument is that if you believed the principle you're proclaiming you'd support banning alcohol ... yet you don't.
Of course I don't. Alcohol is biblically and legally sanctioned, although drunkneness is not.
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. Then don't drag that straw man into this exchange. Kids, drugs are for idiots. Equating drug use with attending Harvard, eating junk food and sleep is an idiotic line of argument.
Hey, I'm not the one that compared drug use to:
A. Eating junk food.
B. Sleeping.
C. Attending Harvard.
D. Reading the New York Times.
If you don't want these comparisons to be called idiotic then don't make them.
That's enough to indicate that the decision should be up to doctors and patients.
To listen to the leftist propagandist one would think that smoking marijuana is the cure for every type of illness known to man.
Why do you keep dragging in the alleged arguments of anonymous others? I've never argued that smoking marijuana is the cure for every type of illness known to man.
And if an inhaler were cheaper than buying pot would you THEN come out and condemn smoking marijuana as an effective medicine?
If there were cheaper and more effective inhalers for every medical condition for which there is evidence of marijuana's effectiveness, then I would agree that prescribing/recommending smoked marijuana is unsound medicine.
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.
Let me guess....you're all for "assisted suicide" too, aren't you?
No ... death doesn't treat any condition, whereas marijuana does.
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?
Actually the penalty was death.
Where in the New Testament does it say that?
No, my argument is that if you believed the principle you're proclaiming you'd support banning alcohol ... yet you don't.
Of course I don't. Alcohol is biblically
The First Amendment clearly rules out basing laws solely on biblical grounds. (Not that the bible condemns marijuana.)
and legally sanctioned
You're arguing in circles; the question is whether, according to your professed principles, alcohol SHOULD be legally sanctioned ... and the answer is clearly no.
I'm not the one that compared drug use to:
A. Eating junk food.
B. Sleeping. [That was "not getting enough sleep," actually.]
You said pot is illegal because of its "potential to harm our society;" I asked where we drew the line, and you falsely claimed I had equated pot use with A and B ... and you've still never honestly answered the actual question despite numerous opportunities.
C. Attending Harvard.
D. Reading the New York Times.
Again, you said that pot should be illegal because "Pot makes its users docile, stupid and susceptible to liberal propaganda. Since they can remain in this docile and stupid state for decades they make the perfect voting bloc for liberal propaganda." I asked where we drew the line, and you falsely claimed I had equated pot use with C and D ... and you've still never honestly answered the actual question despite numerous opportunities.