- There are no successful clinical trials on marijuana by the FDA.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
and many more if you bother to look (also negative impact if you're interested in those!)
Generally you do not do a 'clinical trial' on something that is marked as a schedule 1 substance.
What straw man are you referring to? You implied it had no benefits because it doesn't have clinical trials... It doesn't have clinical trials because it is said to have no benefits (schedule 1)... Circular logic! Magic!
THC is already legal in pill form with a prescription. Again as I've stated, there are zero successful clinical trials (in the USA or anywhere else) that show smoking marijuana is beneficial. Standard scientific proof requires clinical trials.
THC is already legal in pill form with a prescription. Again as I've stated, there are zero successful clinical trials (in the USA or anywhere else) that show smoking marijuana is beneficial. Standard scientific proof requires clinical trials.
First you never mentioned "smoking" in your parent (I quoted it in my earlier reply for reference).
Second 'clinical trials' are a specific thing. In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.
A clinical trial is only done at a specific stage of clinical research or commercial drug development. Clinical trials are an expensive process that must be paid for by the researcher/company looking to market the drug. You may want to read up on what a clinical trial entails before you insist on it being the only useful scientific metric. Clinical trials are also primarily concerned with safety (it is at least 2 of the phases of the trial).
You may want to reconsider your use of 'clinical trial' in your criticism here.
Edit: Last it seems that you did not even bother to read or comprehend my comment/links before you replied with a comment that attempts to change the subject (smoking vs THC in pill form). That seems like very 'trolly' behavior and I will stop responding if you would not like to actually discuss the subject.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
A brief use of the Googles turns up:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373545
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24375977
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/mpohbp/asap/abs/mp060...
and many more if you bother to look (also negative impact if you're interested in those!)
Generally you do not do a 'clinical trial' on something that is marked as a schedule 1 substance.
What straw man are you referring to? You implied it had no benefits because it doesn't have clinical trials... It doesn't have clinical trials because it is said to have no benefits (schedule 1)... Circular logic! Magic!
Edit: Quoting parent