Now that looks like an interesting link! I will check it out, thanks...

-CW

The Government Wants to Buy 12 Acres of Marijuana — for Research
http://time.com/3194786/marijuana-research-national-institutes-of-health-pot/

Yea, I read that.. How freaky, eh? :D

Michale

As nypoet22 put it, the short answer is "no." But there is a longer answer.

SOME ailments might be helped with a pill full of CBDs with no THC. Some states have even gone ahead and legalized ONLY this particular form of medical marijuana, in fact (seems to do wonders for people with a certain type of seizures). But it won't help everybody. Just as Marinol (synthetic THC pill) doesn't help everybody either.

You have put your finger on one aspect, though -- there are a lot of people for whom "smoking" and "medicine" is too much of a disconnect. But edibles are causing problems, too, because of varying rates of dosage (a columnist for the NY Times went to Colorado recently, ate a whole candy bar when she was only supposed to take a few bites, freaked out, and wrote a column about it). Kids unknowingly eating marijuana candy is another problem.

These problems can be solved, though, over time. Standard dosage information (like the "proof" on liquor) will likely become industry standard soon. Edibles will likely morph into non-candy forms, and be more clearly marked (or sold only in single-dose forms, perhaps). Experimentation will likely solve these problems, as the newly legal marketplace reacts.

But as for your bigger question, the real impediment to analyzing marijuana chemically and then testing out various different mixtures (some high in CBDs, some high in THC, etc) for different people. The problem is, this research has simply NOT EXISTED until now, because the federal government has NOT ALLOWED it to happen. Free the labs, and you'll start getting a lot more precision in what is being sold and consumed -- both for medical purposes and for recreational.

I give it about three or four years, before this starts having a major effect on the marketplace. Say, about the time the number of states with recreational weed hits 10 or 15.

So, like I said, a little bit longer answer.

As for Morgan, no, he's really pissed off. Follow all those links and read ALL his comments -- some of them were too scathing for me to use in this article. I don't think DWS is ever going to set foot in his house again.

John From Censornati -

Carville is a genius at those Bayou sayings. I won't be able to get the "gator with a chainsaw" image out of my mind for a while, that's for sure!

As for the ad, you're right, it is indeed correct. You're either for it, or you're for the status quo.

To be fair to her, I don't think DWS is morally or ideologically against legalization. I bet when she fought breast cancer she ran into a few women who used weed illegally, for instance. Out here, by way of contrast, when CA put a recreational legalization proposition on the ballot in 2010, the co-chair of the "anti" folks was none other than Dianne Feinstein. At the time, no Democrat came out in favor of it. But we're keeping our eyes on Gavin Newsome, who is itching to run for higher office (DiFi's gotta retire sooner or later...), and has ALREADY come out in support of full legalization in 2016.

In the case of DWS, I think it's just political timidity. She's scared that donations would dry up if she did support the idea -- that's my uninformed guess, at any rate.

-CW

The ad is also correct. There are really only two choices: a legal market or a black market. Prohibition doesn't work.

I really have no patience at for this woman. This idiotic statement is the very definition of "out of touch with reality". Access is already easy. It just isn't legal. If the gator with a chainsaw gets her, I won't be acutely empathetic to her suffering. I'll have a heaping helping of schadenfreude.

So it comes down to laziness and marketing..

Color me shocked... :^/

Michale

The short answer is no. THC in pill form has been available for decades, and is less effective than natural marijuana. I'm sure research could come up with alternatives that are closer to the real thing, but I guess pharmaceutical companies would rather protect an inferior product than put the time and money into more effectively re-inventing the wheel, so to speak.

JL

I love how Lefties equivocate.. :D

So, the next time Morgan has Wasserman-Schultz in his home for a fundraiser, he can just say, "Well, I said I wouldn't let her in my house for a "HUGE" fundraiser.." :D

Lemme ask ya something CW...

Could all the hassle about marijuana be eliminated by simply creating a pill form of the psycho-active ingredient??

I mean, there doesn't seem to be much objection to candy pot or soda pot....

Maybe it's just the 'smoking' aspect of it, eh??

Michale