The Medical Miracle You'll Get Arrested for Using

[Why Syzygy]

Marijuana was a popular botanical medicine in the 19th and 20th centuries, common in U.S. pharmacies of the time.

Yet, in 1970, the herb was declared a Schedule 1 controlled substance and labeled as a drug with a "high potential for abuse" and "no accepted medical use."

Three years later the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was formed to enforce the newly created drug schedules, and the fight against marijuana use began.

The Huffington Post has a concise history of marijuana prohibition, and the struggle for legalization, that is well worth reading -- but the most successful movement to date, and the one that is set to produce the first legal marijuana market in decades, is the medical marijuana movement.

...


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/26/obama-war-on-weed.aspx?e_cid=20111126_DNL_art_1

[trotsky]

1. Unrec for quack source. n/t

[RC]

2. Please tell us what is wrong with the information in the article.

It has links to reputable sites all through it.

[trotsky]

4. Don't know, didnt read much.

Mercola is a horrible site, chock full of misinformation for the gullible. Like the proverbial broken clock, he might once in a while publish useful or mostly true information, but it doesn't even begin to make up for the rest of the shit.

[HuckleB]

12. It's funny.

I'm pro-legalization, but I actually bothered to read the article and it's filled with Mercola's usual logical fallacies and leaps of faith. Do I have the energy to write a full assessment of his usual routine? Hell no! I'm done. Oh, I know I'll let emotion take over, and I'll spend a few seconds responding to something or another, but I've been done for years. I'm worn out. People don't give a shit about honest, science-based discussion. They just don't.

And yet I can't learn that and live with it. Ugh.

[Why Syzygy]

3. np

Personally, I appreciate this being reported so well by an alt health site. eom

[Mnemosyne]

6. The information is good, whether you approve of the source. Thanks WS! K&R n/t

[trotsky]

7. Oh, snap!

You showed me!

I would also unrec this article had it come from a libertarian site, too. But I don't expect many people to understand.

[Mnemosyne]

8. I always check more than one source either way. Wasn't trying to insult you, no need for snark. nt

[HuckleB]

14. How do you know it's good?

[laconicsax]

5. Mercola?

:rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

9. Recommend - great information

:thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

10. Un rec for Mercola.

[Codeine]

11. Mercola is right up there with NaturalNews and HuffPo as a source. nt

[HuckleB]

13. Bottom line: Plenty of people are making arguments for medical marijuana.

Why use a well-known right-wing scam artist, when you could have gone to so many other sources?

:shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

15. I don't

consider Mercola a "scam artist". And I've never noticed an RW stuff; though I have to admit those of you with a strong aversion to the site are probably much more familiar with it than I am.

I never expected a alt health site to publish a pro-cannabis piece. That's why it is unusual, and why I wanted to post.

[HuckleB]

16. That doesn't help your case at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/09/1014847/-How-to-convert-New-Agers-to-Right-Wing-Lunacy

And not expecting an "alt med" site to publish a pro-cannabis is even more odd. I can't think of any reason not to expect that.

[Why Syzygy]

17. I don't have a "case"

If you don't like the source, pay no attention. Or whatever.


eom

[HuckleB]

18. Hmm.

In other words, you can't bother to defend the source once it has been shown to be pure crap.

Secondly, you can't be adult enough to acknowledge that the source is pure crap.

Pitiful.