Sqwertz wrote:

> Maybe you need to get really sick to understand. Short of that you could read the hundreds of credible medical articles on the subject.

> I bet you wouldn't see any value in shooting up rooster coxcombs either. Or about 90% of any other medical treatments just because you have no personal proof otherwise.


God, this only proves the point of my earlier post about taking sides on a particular issue. I smoke weed, so let's get that out of the way first. I believe it may have some medicinal benefits for some people.

But you citing "credible" medical articles to support your side of 'the issue" is no different from attorneys for the prosecution and defense bringing in "experts" to support their side of the story. God, it's sickening. It's so full of crap. Maybe weed has some medicinal benefits. But I agree with Gary - they are overrated and used as a way of opening the door to recreational weed use, which is fine with me. I am also aware that with legalization will come some unforseen negatives such as cops making more traffic stops, using special weed detecting machines on the spot to test their suspects, as well as really high prices. Some people will continue to use their regular dealers anyway. Some may flood to the stores, then run away when they find that taxes and other price-raising factors have made their cherished legal drug available regularly only to the few who can afford it.

Anyway, regarding the studies, the experts, the credibility, etc., - I know very well that those on the other side of the argument can trot out just as much 'evidence' to support their side of the issue. The issue. It's sickening. Just another way of getting out the vote - creating issues that border on 50/50 and go on for decades. Great for the lawyers and politicians..

TJ