<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Holder To Announce New Drug Policy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/08/08/holder-to-announce-new-drug-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/08/08/holder-to-announce-new-drug-policy/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 04:19:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dsws</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/08/08/holder-to-announce-new-drug-policy/#comment-41117</link>
		<dc:creator>dsws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 01:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=7757#comment-41117</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The federal government even still provides marijuana to a handful of people who were in a program in the 1970s and 1980s to treat glaucoma.&lt;/i&gt;

From the fact that a study allowed participants to continue receiving an experimental medication, it does not follow that the medication is accepted.  It may be that a medication is unacceptably dangerous, but with the ill effects usually appearing relatively quickly, so that people who are on it can stay on it.  It may be that a condition requires careful monitoring to stabilize it, and is badly destabilized by any changes in medication -- even the removal of a medication that in itself is entirely harmful.  It may be that a condition responds well to placebo effects, which are lost when treatment is changed.

I can&#039;t say whether any of those apply to glaucoma.  But I can say that &quot;don&#039;t study that, or you&#039;ll have to consider it accepted&quot; is a lousy policy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The federal government even still provides marijuana to a handful of people who were in a program in the 1970s and 1980s to treat glaucoma.</i></p>
<p>From the fact that a study allowed participants to continue receiving an experimental medication, it does not follow that the medication is accepted.  It may be that a medication is unacceptably dangerous, but with the ill effects usually appearing relatively quickly, so that people who are on it can stay on it.  It may be that a condition requires careful monitoring to stabilize it, and is badly destabilized by any changes in medication -- even the removal of a medication that in itself is entirely harmful.  It may be that a condition responds well to placebo effects, which are lost when treatment is changed.</p>
<p>I can't say whether any of those apply to glaucoma.  But I can say that "don't study that, or you'll have to consider it accepted" is a lousy policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
