Prompted by “Feds stick to court argument that marijuana is dangerous”: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Feds-stick-to-court-argument-that-marijuana-is-5990798.php
“While there may be ‘some dispute among doctors as to whether marijuana is medicine,’ there is ample evidence to support the government’s conclusion that ‘this psychoactive, addictive drug is not accepted as safe for medical use at this time, even with medical supervision,’ Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick wrote.”
Ample evidence? Exactly where would one shred of that evidence be? Perhaps they are referring to anti-cannabis studies funded by prohibitionists that still merely “suggest” that “heavy marijuana use” (or “marijuana abuse”) “can” (or “may”) be harmful (all with a disclaimer that more research needs to be conducted to be sure) — never to mention the obvious absence of application of the scientific method in these “studies” by excluding critical intake factors. Precise intake amount, results from different intake methods to ensure the method (e.g. smoking) is not the actual harmful cause, and the ever-critical strain differential — e.g. Blue Dream vs. Grapefruit vs. Blackberry vs. OG Kush vs. remaining very long list of strains (nonetheless each strain’s possibly lengthy set of variations based upon grower distinctions) producing unique psychological structuring — remain unscientifically missing. Basically, I am not the only one reaching this conclusion…
“Lawyers for alleged marijuana growers countered that the government presented no credible evidence that marijuana carries the potential hazards of legal substances, like tobacco and alcohol…”
By the legal way, why did our federal government take out a patent (http://www.google.ca/patents/US6630507) on the medical effectiveness of cannabis (“Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants“), if there is no medical effectiveness?
“Although some ingredients of marijuana have government-approved medicinal use, Broderick wrote, there are no adequate long-term studies attesting to the medical value or safety of marijuana. In fact, he said, ‘there is no standard, “medical” marijuana,’ and neither patients nor their doctors know which substances they’re ingesting.”
Prohibition fails to stop cannabis use (as proven at least statistically between comparable usage rates of prohibition and non-prohibition areas, and the inability to even create a “drug free” prison system), but sadly does not fail to prevent good people from working hard towards that “standard”. Prohibition (nonetheless without societal benefit at tremendous societal cost) causes ample dangers involving cannabis by ensuring the product is seriously limited in its legal availability (i.e. opposes the critical and vast strain differential, so users fail to have access to a sufficiently broad set of fitting strain results to match their particular stress-alteration needs for positive stress impact).
medicine: “any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy.” — dictionary.com
While actual science remains nonexistent with respect to the pros and cons of ingesting cannabis, ample empirical evidence exists in the form of cannabis’ use for thousands of years, many people claiming the “medicine” (with yours truly mocking their scoffing quotes) relieves suffering (matching the formal definition of the word medicine), millions of people are using cannabis (according to government statistics) without a shred of conclusively proven harm in (at least) most cases, and (among many other prominent figures) Tommy Chong (76 year old self-proclaimed “stoner” and a contestant on “Dancing with the Stars” who reached the semi-finales and crushed the age record in doing so — demonstrating that cannabis is not perfectly harmful, if not also at least proving the anti-inflammatory nature of cannabis is truly awesome).
Does anyone finally now want to prominently continuously talk about the serious dangers of reason abuse? I remain perfectly confident that we can find ample evidence to support the varying degrees of (including horrific) damage done against society from that obviously lawfully acceptable form of abuse (so acceptable, that reason abuse forms ample evidence of liberty-infringing law in a nation that was supposed to have an unalienable right to liberty to prevent such abuse against the public good, clearly according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence).
Leave a Reply