🚀 go-pugleaf

In <143@conpharm.DIALix.oz.au> jhfidge@conpharm.DIALix.oz.au (Julian
Fidge) writes: 
>
> 
>In article <4dtjjn$bpp@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, M.Grubor
(zando@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>In <4dt1dc$en7@uno.canit.se> optimus@canit.se (Iggy Drougge) writes: 
>>>
>>>M.Grubor (zando@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: We are shortly going to be proposing the creation of a 
>>>: sci.med.cannabis UseNet NewsGroup, because of the distinction
>>>: that science makes between cannabis and all other substances.
>
>Huh? What distinction? You're on your own if you think we
>differentiate between drugs on the basis of a lawyer's or
>politician's rhetoric!
> 
This has nothing to do with law or politics.
this has to do with medical cabbabis.
I would think we could expect this audience
to differentiate between the issues.

read the DSM IV and the Merck Manual, and come
back better informed.
>>>
>>>: Who has any objection to this new NewsGroup?
>>>
>
>Do what you like. Pharmacists will probably continue to discuss
>delta-9 THC in sci.mec.pharmacy.
> 
Yes, but unfortunately, they know little about CBD, CBN or
any other of the sixty active cannabis isomers.

>>>As long as you continue your crusade against rec.drugs.*, then I
>>object 
>>>strongly.
>>
>If this is true, you should have your own group to prevent end
>organ damage to the scientist practitioners who use
>sci.med.pharmacy. 
>
end organ damage is off-topic

>>I see.  Well, this demonstrates a very significant reason why
>>the sci.med.cannabis group must be created.
>>
>>People are trying to use the "quasi-acceptable" -- "recreational"
>>status of cannabis as a *mis-association* to merit the continuation
of
>>a *recreational.drug* hierarchy.  The "recreational" use of any
>>substance can not be considered a "legitimate activity" 
>
>... In your opinion, but not in any professional's. Your trade
>involves judgement. Medicine aims for non-judgemental consideration.
>
There is no judgement involved here. there is logic involved.
the logic of differentiating between the issues.
>
>>and when 
>>cannabis is associated with other substances in a "recreational.drug"
>>hierarchy, it is done with the specific purpose of supporting the
>>recreational use of hard drugs.
>>
>You must be very, very dim. THC is not considered a hard drug by
>anyone except fringe lunatics.
> 
THC is one of the world's safest drugs, but it has been raped on
this UseNet by misassociation with hard drugs.

>>Medical cannabis is the subject of this new newsgroup, and the
>>recreational use of *any* substance will be "off-topic."
>>This is for AIDS, Cancer, polio, ashma, epilepsy, MS,
>>Glaucoma, spasticity and other medical uses of cannabis.
>>
>        So why isn't sci.med.pharmacy appropriate?
>
because most pharmacists do not know anything about
cannasis therapy and the means to control the main
THC/CBD ratios, or any other cannabinoid isomer information.
>>
>>John M. Grubor
>>Doctor Of Law
>
>        Piss off, dickhead.
>
>                                                 ////  
>                                                (0,0)
>--------------------------------------------ooo--(_)--ooo----------
>          _
>         (_)        Julian Fidge BPharm, Grad Dip App Sc (Comp Sc) 
>   ______//_        25 Elizabeth Street Elsternwick Victoria 3185
>  (_________)       AUSTRALIA
>   \\\\\////        jhfidge@melbourne.DIALix.oz.au
>    \_____/         Phone: 61 3 018 313 314 or 61 3 9531 4497
>    (_____)         Facsimile: 61 3 9690 2892
> 
> _________________ Peace and Goodwill to all Mankind ______________ 
>