Pot smokers don't puff away lung health: study

[caseymoz]

110. In other words, HIS statement was bullshit.

You're not treating this like something scientific. You're treating it like I just put down your favorite band. That's the tone you're taking. I just doubted your favorite cure-all, the thing that brings pleasure to your life. And you can't tolerate it.

Yes, I did read it. But you don't even realize with a qualifier like that he's saying that the proposition has never had a leg to stand on prior. So why does he mention it? Maybe to make advocates think that there's some pertinent medical history there? If I were cynical, I'd say that. But that's what I would say about his writing (it's an opening I would edit out), not about his science, so this whole thing is a just tangent that irritates you.

And I noticed how quickly you dropped the benefit of 19th century medicine, the willow-bark stuff. That's what I thought you were saying bullshit to. I never got a chance to say "check" before you rearranged the board.

It doesn't matter if I read your friggin information immediately or not. I don't have asthma, I don't use pot in any way, and I'm already pro-legalization. And I'm not in the scientific or medical fields. So, why the fuck is it also so important to you that I quit harshing up your mellow about pot? Why should it be that important to me? I have other, more important things in my life. I'll read it in my own time, thank you. And I will read it.

Moreover, why the fuck is it in my interest to get a Ph. fucking D. in pot science so you can feel you're totally and absolutely affirmed in the benefits of getting high? But that still wouldn't be good enough, because than I'd still have the least doubt in the smallest benefit it could have.

You're not persuasive, to say the least. And I'm not the only person who sees this when they try to talk pot advocates down even the least bit from the medicinal promise of marijuana. As I said, you don't even need it for legalization. Tobacco and alcohol aren't legal because they're medically beneficial. If you can't get it legalized on the benefits already demonstrated, throwing in a few more is not going to do it. It's not being kept illegal because it isn't beneficial enough.

So, why the fuck are you insisting that I make myself an expert just because I find one little reason to doubt? The scientific hurdle here should be pretty high, no pun intended, higher than it was for ulcers being caused by bacteria, which I couldn't find much doubt in at the time. At least bacteria couldn't be expected to make ulcers better.