They cure pain.
Seems it’s usually for killing people, which generally comes in the form of a really bad side effect.
- If you can’t be bothered to go through the links you provide us to give us the best examples, why the hell should we bother to do it for you?
- Anxiety?
Really??
You come in here to back up the claims of a marketeer that pot is a damn-near universal cure all, and you have the sheer gall to present us with a study that shows us that it sometimes alleviates anxiety? Let’s poll the audience on that one, shall we?: Who here needs a double-blind study to figure out that pot can make one a very mellow fellow?
Name a few.
JFluvly, do you have any idea how many drugs have promising prior plausibility before then proceeding to completely bomb in clinical trials? It’s a pretty common factor. And yeah, pot is great for treatment of anxiety (if you ignore all side-effects). I don’t think anyone would deny that; we’ve all seen what happens to most people when they take a few drags on a doobie. It’d be like proscribing crystal meth for narcolepsy or heroin for chronic pain - it’s probably going to solve the problem.
Where have I heard this old chestnut before? Why, it’s a classic wooist comeback. It would carry more force from someone who hasn’t posted voluminously to little effect. Let’s see, what other classic rhetorical devices can we spot?
Ah, the government conspiracy angle. Always useful.
And look, the “Science wuz wrong before” gambit. All the old favorites are materializing!
Did you know they laughed at Galileo? 
They also laughed at Bozo the Pothead.
…I’m pretty sure that’s not the actual quote…
You don’t have to prove an invention works to get a patent.
However, here’s the patent.
Avandia
Your the one that wants to know
It’s a long list, that was close to the top
What side effects?
Sorry, I have a life, I don’t have all day and night to play online.
What the hell is that supposed to mean.
Science has been wrong many times, are you disputing that?
Yep, same as the one in my link, good job.
I said nothing of a conspiracy.
Looking closer:
http://www.drugwatch.com/avandia/lawsuit.php
So basically, this was straight up academic fraud, being justifiably punished. Nice. How common are cases like this as opposed to cases like parents suing because they think their children got autism from scheduled vaccines? But here’s the key point: without that “scientific methodology”, nobody would have known. You would have had a bunch of heart conditions and no way to link them to this drug. Indeed, simply reviewing the scientific clinical trials was enough in this case to show plausible cause, because the problem here was not “this was not tested well” or “this was not tested adequately”. It was “we underestimated (perhaps intentionally) a detrimental side-effect”. This is not an excuse to waive the scientific method with medicine. This is a reason to strengthen it, and its requirements. Which leads me to this:
Good fucking question. How would we know? There certainly haven’t been much in the realm of tests, and often detrimental side-effects don’t come out until quite a while after the fact, or until after the medicine has stopped being taken. This is why peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are so important - because without them, we have no idea what works and what doesn’t, or at what cost.
I have to go to bed, since you folks have all this spare time to do this, find me some double blind studies to prove that it doesn’t work. Not that I really care, or that you will be able to find them (I’m assuming), but so that you have an legitimate argument that scientifically says it does not work.
People have been using cannabis for thousands of years, I’m pretty sure something critical would have shown up by now. I’m not saying that problems don’t exist, they just don’t appear to be all that bad.
OK Avandia may not have been the best example, but it’s late and I am rushing. I mean come on, class action lawsuits because of drugs are flashing all over american television.
[Freddie Prinze]Not my job, man.[/FP]Your extraordinary claim, so you come up with the goods.
Wow, you really don’t get it? Nobody is saying it doesn’t work. We’re saying there’s no decent evidence that it does, and that we aren’t going to believe it works until such evidence is provided. Christ, at least JKander tried.
Class action lawsuits like these. Or this one. But that said… are they? And even then, that’s not good enough. You don’t just need “here is a class action lawsuit against a drug”. You need “here is a drug where the scientific method failed to spot or predict side-effects or turned up a false positive for efficacy”. The latter quite simply does not exist. The former… Thalidomide, maybe? I don’t know much about that particular case. Might be your example. But even that’s just one example, and a mediocre one from over 50 years ago at that. There’s a reason we have this scientific process in place to evaluate drugs - it’s reliably and indisputably effective to an almost ridiculous degree.
And so much more.
You can sue anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean it’s legit.
Most if not nearly all are driven by the belief that medicine should be without side effects.
And don’t forget who gets the bulk of the settlement in a class action suit.
So now the new standard of evidence is “they talk about it a lot on American TV”? I remember when X-Files was popular, and how flying saucers kept popping up in our skies all the time. That was crazy!
What extraordinary claims? It worked for me.
Tell that to these people.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Labour-Industry/2012/01/23/class-action-suit-vioxx/
https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/accutane.php
Seriously? Let’s see some cites for this. Have you read all of that webmd report?
On pregnancy…
You are contradicting yourself here, and once again I personally consider death to be a little more than a side effect.
Is that the best you’ve got? You know exactly what I meant by what I said. This type of response is so typical for here, always go to belittling when you disagree and have nothing else.