
Originally Posted by
emow
its a pitiful attempt to derive an analogy... there are no medical records of such occurence. in 1950s, there was a study about pots effects on monkeys, and the conclusion was pot can kill. and this was the basis for the prohibition in 1970s. but many objected to the methodology of the study, because shoving a telephone pole's worth of cannabis, or any material for that matterr like cotton, to the monkey every 3 hours for three days would kill solely due to burning of the lungs leading to respiratory collapse and not because of substances in cannabis. yes, there were studies saying it might predispose to cancer, but immunologists in harvard medicine concluded on the contrary (kasabot ra ka ininglis?). it may not be a cure to all diseases , but so are most pharmaceutical products.. what kind of criteria should we assess pot before legalizing it? if the absence of psychoactive substance would be the determinant, then there are existing species of cannabis that do not have the ability to produce the high, like cannabis ruderalis.
- - - Updated - - -
off topic: no. but my mom has cancer. chemo and radiation is not an option for people who are already emaciated. it would be better if we have a cannabis option.
ontopic; let me spell it out what john locke and sir robert peel meant, to force or protect a person from himself is to commit crime of violence, and goes counter to the legitimate function of law and its enforcement.